Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 2

Guide to deletion

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. Wiktionary will absolutely not want this. Their criteria are very stringent - I know because I tried to move some stuff over to them a few months back and got soundly rejected. Consensus is deletion. I will userfy if anyone wants a copy for the attempt though. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Animal verbs in English

Animal verbs in English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

First wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this is just a collection of terms that might appear in a dictionary, though an odd one. It groups totally unrelated types of words – slang ("aardvark"), words derived from animal names ("beaver") and coincidences of spelling ("bat", "bear"). If it means to include all such it is woefully incomplete, while some words are just repeated (those are not really separate meanings of "bear"). And it is entirely original research, being sourced mostly to google translations. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Moving response from the talk page on the article to this page

In relation to the concern that this is a “dictionary page", rest assured that it is not; it is a list page.

According to Wikipedia, A dictionary is a collection of words in one or more specific languages, often arranged alphabetically (or by radical and stroke for ideographic languages), which may include information on definitions, usage, etymologies, phonetics, pronunciations, translation, etc.[1] or a book of words in one language with their equivalents in another, sometimes known as a lexicon.[1] It is a lexicographical product which shows inter-relationships among the data.[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary

By contrast, again according to Wikipedia, a list is any enumeration of a set of items.

This entry does not include the characteristics of dictionary collections, but it does fit within the definition of a list.

In addition, one can find many lists on Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List

Lists related to the animal verbs topic include the following:

List of animal sounds - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animal_sounds

Lists of animals - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_animals

List of animal names – Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animal_names

List of English animal nouns – Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_animal_nouns

List of domesticated animals - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_domesticated_animals

List of words having different meanings in American and British English (A–L):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_words_having_different_meanings_in_American_and_British_English

List of domesticated animals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_domesticated_animals

We feel that the present page is of exactly similar form to these list pages and there is no reason to delete it.

Moreover, it is not an etymology page, and does not claim that the verb uses derive from the same etymology as the noun uses.

It is simply a list of animal names that are used as verbs, with examples.

CWTyler (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)(EditExpress (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC))

• Response to John Blackburne

John Blackburne, it does not appear that you read the opening paragraph where we explain what kind of list this is:

           “This is a compendium of animal names (i.e., nouns) that are also used as verbs in the English language. The list includes verbal usages that relate directly and indirectly to the noun’s meaning, analogies and unrelated verbal definitions, and is subdivided into common categories of vertebrate animals, together with a category of invertebrates.” 

This kind of list is a form of noun verb pairing that frequently comes up in language training, particularly in K-12 education and in learning sign language. Our list does not fulfill the requirements of dictionary entries, and is not intended to do so. It has value in terms of an encyclopedia because it is a collection of a set of items in the manner of many lists on Wikipedia that compile information in a way that is not a part of a dictionary’s function. The list of animal sounds and lists of domesticated animal are two examples.

So I guess the appropriate question is why would anyone care about this list? As noted above, these kinds of pairings are a part of common human communication and we learn them as we learn language. They help us see some of the nuances of how we use words and learn to use words from a young age. For example, Linda Sue Park’s book Yaks Yak: Animal Word Pairs was written for 4-7 year olds. This book, by the way, was awarded the Amazon Best Children’s Books of the Year: NonFiction, Shelf Awareness Best of 2016. The book’s blurb reads “Yaks Yak presents animals acting out the verbs made from their names.”

To further speak about whether or not the page is more appropriate for a dictionary, according to Wikipedia’s encylopedia page:

           “Generally speaking, unlike dictionary entries which focus on linguistic information about words, such as their meaning, pronunciation, use, and grammatical forms, encyclopedia articles focus on factual information concerning the subject named in the article’s title.[3][4][5][6] …  an encyclopedia article is typically not limited to simple definitions, and is not limited to defining an individual word, but provides a more extensive meaning for a subject or discipline.

This is precisely what the “Animal verbs in English” article provides. It offers factual information about the subject named in the article’s title and, unlike a dictionary it does not detail the linguistic information about the words. We would be happy to re-title the entry “List of animal verbs” and would like to recommend deleting the addition of “in English,” which is inconsistent with all comparable Wikipedia pages.

Suffice it to say that our example sentences are not dictionary definitions but rather show how some words are used experientially. English speakers do in fact use the names (nouns) as verbs, and it isn’t “original research” to say this since we can all read the animal names and envisage the animals/nouns.

In other words, it is incorrect to label this contribution as original research, despite the warning someone placed on the article. It is a LIST and it makes no argument about the information it presents in any kind of original sense. The list draws no conclusions. It simply delineates information showing how the English language works that is pretty universally accepted.

Finally, we used Google translation citations because it offers example sentences showing how the word is used when you ask the software to translate an English word. We could have crafted our own “original” sentences but used Google translation as a well-established source, together with other sources when Google translate did not have an example sentence.

I find it extraordinary and immensely disappointing that Wikipedia editors think this article is of so little value that they have the temerity to propose deleting it on spurious grounds. There is nothing controversial in it and it certainly adds to the stockpile of information because it brings together information related to our human communication experience, albeit in a somewhat limited fashion. You won’t find this list in any dictionary. Whereas it isn’t original, it is a topic of broad interest as exemplified by the five non-Wikipedia websites we came across discussing this specific issue, although none of them have more than about 15 examples.(EditExpress (talk) 05:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC))

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I draw your attention to our policy: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and also our policy on lists of words. The latter is the more applicable, in particular the last sentence:

"Some other, non-glossary lists of words can also yield an encyclopedic page, such as List of English words containing Q not followed by U, the condition being that reliable secondary sources for the topic can be cited."

The point of that is, for a list of words to make a good article, there must be a reliable source or sources that discuss the list as a whole. Without that, even if individual entries are sourced, the list as a whole is subjective and original research. And no, Google translate is not a good source for anything. It is thoroughly unreliable as all machine translations are.

There may be content here that would work on Wiktionary, but I do not spend much time on Wiktionary so do not know exactly how it might be used, or if any of it makes sense as an article there. But it certainly does not meet the criteria here.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 07:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment As JohnBlackburne says, WP:LISTGLOSSARY requires the existence of secondary sources discussing animal-derived verbs in general. I found one paper, which includes the following discussion:

from Kelly, M. H. (1998). Rule-and idiosyncratically derived denominal verbs: Effects on language production and comprehension. Memory & cognition, 26(2), 369-381.

On the other hand, animal terms seem to possess very diverse meanings when used as verbs. Thus, whereas monkey means "to clown around," dog means "to chase tirelessly." However, one might claim that animal denominal verbs are RD [rule-derived] as well, since they all seem to mean "to behave like X," where X is the animal. I will present three responses to this criticism. First, one can argue that certain subareas ofidiosyncratic categories group together in systematic ways, though in comparison with "pure" RD categories, they contain many exceptions. Thus, to fish does not mean "to act like a fish" but rather to catch fish. To bird does not mean "to act like a bird," but rather to watch birds. Now, it must be admitted that RD and ID [idiosyncratically-derived] denominals are not distinctly discrete. Rather, they appear to fall along a continuous dimension. Nonetheless, the dimension might be relevant to the creation ofdenominal verbs, and the best strategy to demon- strate this relevance would focus on the extreme ends of the continuum. The categories used in this experiment seem to be located toward the two extremes, and the results support the intuitive division. Second, one could point to the pragmatics of lexicography to demonstrate the relative homogeneity of RD denominals. Lexicographers clearly follow pragmatic rules in writing defmitions. Rather than include every component of a word's meaning in a definition, they assume that the reader will be able to make some easy inferences, such as knowing that being a bird entails being an animal. Since lexicographers will assume that readers possess such knowledge, they will not include an explicit animal entry under bird definitions. Lexicographers therefore appear to follow Gricean maxims of communicative efficiency (Grice, 1975). A definition should include just enough information for the reader to gain a reasonable understanding of a word's meaning. If this pragmatic rule is kept in mind as one examines actual definitions of denominal verbs, one will find that almost identical definitions are provided for RD denominals, whereas strikingly different definitions are given for ID denominals. Thus, actual definitions of vehicle verbs state "To travel by x," with the X replaced by the specific vehicle being discussed. Lexicographers apparently assume that no more information is required for the reader to infer the meaning of vehicles whose names are used as verbs. Now, if animal verbs such as monkey, dog, or pig are consulted, one does not find a general definition "To behave like an X" Rather, much more specific definitions are provided, which differ from animal to animal. One can conclude, therefore, that lexicographers believe that more idiosyncratic definitions are needed for one to understand such verbs.

I'll let editors with more linguistic experience judge if this is a real secondary source or more of an incidental reference. FourViolas (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The point about Google Translate is that it provides a convenient distillation of both standard (and succinct) definitions and sentence examples for any word entered into it, not that its translate function is being used in any form. This list is a compilation of these standard sources, and is a topic of general interest, as any Internet search of the term "animal verbs" will reveal. CWTyler (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I have added secondary sources to the Animal verbs page. To elaborate, Hancock and Todd have pointed out in International English Usage that it is because the world community of English speakers is so diverse, and because the language reflects this diversity, that discussions of language use have value. In this context they refer to noun verb pairings..

 In English, many everyday language uses are based on metaphor, as can be seen from a brief listing of the commonest nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs applied to people and deriving from animal names or characteristics. 

 Nouns ape, ass, baboon, badger, bear, beaver, bird, bitch, bulldog, canary, cat, chicken, clam, cock, cow, crow, cuckoo, dog, donkey, elephant, fox, goat, goose, gopher, guineapig, hen, hog, horse, kitten, lamb, lark, lion, louse, magpie, march hare, minx, mole, monkey, mouse, mule, ox, parrot, peacock, pig, pup(py), rabbit, rat, shark, sheep, squirrel, snake, stoolpigeon, toad, tortoise, turkey, turtle, viper, weasel, wolf, worm. 

 Verbs As well as many of the above nouns which can be used as verbs, the following animal attributes can occur as verbs: bark, bleat, bug, catnap, claw, ferret (out), flap, flounder, fly, gallop,gobble, growl, hare, hiss, lionise, paw, peck, pussyfoot, roar, rook, snap, snarl, snort, toady.  

Others have pointed out that metaphor is only one element for consideration and, indeed, dictionaries do not cover all of the possibilities. For example, the linguist Peggy Kamuf speaks about the worm, pointing out that a dictionary cannot encompass the possibilities of how a word like worm operates as an animal and a verb. Indeed, many of the nouns on our list have more than one meaning. Kamuf notes:

  “[I]solated, without any context, it might very well be an epithet, a curse, unless it is an apostrophe, an address – if one may permit oneself to address a worm or even to invoke it as a proper name, Worm. Or else, since the noun is so thoroughly wormed through with the verb – and vice versa (‘and vice versa’ says already something wormlike) – it could as well be a strange imperative, a command, or even some kind of prayer or supplication. To be sure, no dictionary is going to sanction all these possibilities, but by definition, so to speak, inventive language has never waited upon dictionary definition, on the contrary.

Kelly, by contrast, notes that, “animal terms seem to possess very diverse meanings when used as verbs and are also idiosyncratic." This is one reason a glossary does not suffice for this information. Kelly continues, "For example, “To bird does not mean "to act like a bird," but rather to watch birds”

The variety of ways in which we use language in communication is also a component educators consider and animal/verbs frequently surface in tools that aid children in learning [language arts] In addition, the topic is probed broadly..(EditExpress (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC))

• Comment. I suspect there could be an interesting Wikipedia article on zoosemy in word formation; see JSTOR 41398175 for an example of a source on exactly the topic considered here, animal verbs in English. That said, a mere list of such words and their definitions would seem to violate WP:NOTDICTIONARY, even if we eliminated the false friends. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. Response to David Eppstein.

Thanks for your comment David. It looks like this is my first and last article for Wikipedia. We'll just post it elsewhere if it doesn't meet Wikipedia standards.

• We thought our Wikipedia page matched many of the lists on Wikipedia and some deemed up to Wikipedia standards are strikingly similar to ours, as noted above.

• As for the idea that it is subjective, suffice it to say that the comment makes me laugh out loud since we all use these words regularly when we communicate. I do research all the time and I know what something subjective and anecdotal is.

• As for the problem of google citations, well, whereas it would be possible to use sentences from papers in google scholar or pull sentences out of well known books for the animal verb sentence examples, an approach some of the lists on Wikipedia use, it would essentially be cosmetic. Adding a more prestigious citation to make the same point is just busy work. I could have crafted original sentences since we all know what the words mean, but wikipedia "values" citations.

• As for your suggestion to write on zoosemy, I think it would make sense if we really felt the need to have Wikipedia accept an article for some reason. We are academics but animal verbs has nothing to do with our research. We gain nothing from making the list available and chose to post here because our impulse was share it broadly. It increasingly looks like our sense of Wikipedia's mission was based on a limited understanding, or perhaps a misunderstanding, of what Wikipedia finds of value. (EditExpress (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC))

Please note that this is NOT a dictionary page because the primary source words, the animal nouns, do NOT have definitions on the page, the primary criterion for a dictionary. Definitions are provided for the verbs purely for clarification, as the multiple meanings for a given verbal noun would be a matter of guesswork without them. Zoosemy is an irrelevant rtred herring because it is a noun usage for labeling human qualities, not the verbal usage of an animal noun. Note that the page is fully referenced and bibliography of books discussing the concept of animal nouns used as verbs is now included. CWTyler (talk) 04:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Delete Delete. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary. The article is basically a collection of trivia. Separately, I don't feel that Google Translate is a good reference for definitions of words, but the sourcing is irrelevant to the delete vote. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Wiktionary per WP:NOT. Bobherry Talk Edits 12:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - it's exactly the sort of list that our readers are looking for and that we do well. If absolutely the consensus, I would not oppose moving to Wiktionary. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - it's a shame because a lot of effort went into this, but this is missing any sociological context that would suggest there's any significance to the lists. The article is a hodgepodge of entries (bearing something, as in enduring it, somehow relates to bears?), and I don't see how this improves the encyclopedia. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Move to wiktionary. Actually, I'm not up on wiktionary's inclusion criteria, so I'm not sure this fit there either. If not there, then perhaps there's some other wiki which would be an appropriate home for this. I'm a bit conflicted here. I can get past the WP:NOT complaints; I was all ready to argue IAR keep. But, beyond WP:NOT, relying on google translate for the (overwhelming) majority of the sources just doesn't work for us. I encourage EditExpress not to be discouraged. I think this is an interesting and useful compendium, it just doesn't meet our specific requirements. Hopefully a better home can be found for it somewhere. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete/Move. I know how hard it is to create a list article about a bunch of words as I myself have done it. However, this article's topic is so specific and dictionary like, that it should belong on Wikipedia. I agree with RoySmith, maybe some other wiki project would be a better home for this. But please, do not delete the content (archive it in our sandbox), as it is very neat and may be useful somewhere else.NikolaiHo^☎️ 04:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete -- an indiscriminate collection of trivia. Is "bat" indeed an "animal verb"? Or is this a coinsedence? Does not belong in the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. And salt, for a few years at least. Request recreation on WP:DELREV Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Infinite Computer Solutions

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Infinite Computer Solutions
• Articles for deletion/Infinite Computer Solutions (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Infinite Computer Solutions (3rd nomination)

Infinite Computer Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Previously deleted per WP:G11 three times as unambiguious advertising and once per WP:A7 as no indication of importance. Speedy deletion recently (and correctly, IMO) declined for deletion per WP:G4, recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, since it is different and has been expanded. But that doesn't make it any less promotional. Propose to delete and salt. Mduvekot (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete and probably salt due to persistent recreation, following G11 and AfD deletions. Sourcing does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and the article is entirely promotional, bordering on G11. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Per nomination and also protect it from being created in the future. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Inside a Dream (EP)

Inside a Dream (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

non notable EP with one third party reference Jax 0677 (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 22:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 22:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep A quick google search brings up numerous hits regarding the new release and some early reviews. Considering it was just released last Friday, I would expect even more to come. Not sure why the nominator wouldn't look to redirect first. He may want to read WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - A WP:BEFORE search should have been conducted. I easily found multiple reviews from reliable outlets within seconds.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable release with multiple reliable sources.  gongshow  talk  01:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - This article has improved significantly since it was first nominated. BTW, is anyone going to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bebe & Bassy Tour and fix the icons that are showing up blank? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. I have checked all sources and numerous sources come up when I Google up 'Peter Harache goldsmith'. No valid reason for deletion. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Peter Harache

Peter Harache (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Little indication from source searches (Google, Books, WorldCat) that he even exists, let alone meets GNG. DrStrauss talk 20:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. There are really quite a lot of sources [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. One says that the "the importance of Pierre Harache, senior, to the story of the Huguenot goldsmiths settling in London... cannot be exaggerated" [11]. At the very least a redirect to Harache family would be better than deletion, but I think we have enough to source and expand this beyond a stub. – Joe (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment, page 1 of a gsearch "Peter Harache goldsmith" brings up a listing of London goldsmiths that includes Harache so he did exist, also here and here that discusses his and son's works, in Huguenots in Britain and France here it talks of his patronage as being "the highest in the land" and that William III probably commissioned his work, and this, Highlights of the Untermyer Collection of English and Continental Decorative Arts lists/describes one of his works, so this looks like a keeper. wow, addendum, with the addition sources brought up by Joe Roe it is a definitely a keep, possibly with info added about all the Peters. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep -- Being the first Huguenot to be admitted to the London Livery Company should be sufficient to keep. A Grove Dictionary should be a RS. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep I stopped counting Google books references after about a dozen. Widely mentioned as a famous goldsmith.104.163.152.238 (talk) 05:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - Joe Roe's first and third cited sources are enough for me. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. A Train^talk 08:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Lucy Hartley

Lucy Hartley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails academic notability guidelines. Superficially, she passes it as her book is "noted", but little sourcing is offered to verify this. DrStrauss talk 19:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment, Hartley's book, Physiognomy, is held by around 275 libraries and has been reviewed in Victorian Studies, Annals of Science, Journal of the History of Behavioural Sciences, Isis A Journal of the History of Science Society, RES The Review of English Studies, so meets WP:NBOOK for its own wikiarticle, whether this is enough or there are other sources that warrant a standalone for Hartley i will leave it for others ...... Coolabahapple (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep As the writer of a notable book, as Coolabahapple points out, she passes CREATIVE. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Her second book just came out last July, and I'm sure will also attract published reviews. Until it does, the case is a bit borderline for WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO1E, and even more so for WP:PROF. But I'm choosing weak keep instead of weak delete because the trajectory is in the right direction. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment, I am not a Wikipedia editor but rather someone who posted an article recently that to my surprise was flagged for deletion. I am familiar with Lucy Hartley's academic work and it contributes greatly to our knowledge of intersections in 19th century science, art, literature, and more broadly. Over the last few days I have read through a number of AfD discussions on what is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia and have also researched discussions outside of Wikipedia about the deletion process. What an education, to say the least. I don't know Lucy Hartley, although I've often recommended her Physiognomy to others because it is of value in an area I research as an academic. If her work is considered insufficiently notable to deserve an entry on Wikipedia then I am even more disappointed in the arbitrariness of this site than I was when my article was flagged for deletion for spurious reasons.(EditExpress (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC))
• Comment - This one is on the borderline, notability-wise; perhaps a TOOSOON situation, perhaps a narrow academic pass. Seems to be a full professor at a major university with about 20 years of teaching experience and a couple significant books. Carrite (talk) 11:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

A Secret Worth Keeping

A Secret Worth Keeping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Episode set has no independent notability from the TV series. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete No independent coverage in acceptable sources; fails GNG; NRV. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion and not a repository for indiscriminate information. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete WP:UNDUE. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 08:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Michael Henrich (Newscaster)

Michael Henrich (Newscaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not satisfy general notability. There is no in-depth independent coverage of this person, only the usual coverage by his employer and by social media, and of another person (the hockey player) with the same name. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with his does not satisfy general notability. There are hundreds if reporters of his status with wikipedia pages, most will less citation than noted here. He is on every morning broadcast in a major media market. And again, many of his contemporaries of entries. --Cwitt93 (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is not a reason not to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete or Move - I tend to agree with nom that no sources outside of routine coverage can be found, and thus vote to delete. If by chance someone finds a couple of credible sources then I would recommend a move back to draft space. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete -- a resume-like page on an unremarkable newscaster; lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources are all routine or passing mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Andreas Murbeck

Andreas Murbeck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. No independent non-trivial coverage - fails WP:SPORTBASIC, WP:GNG. No evidence the subject has qualified for pro leagues per NFOOTBALL, WP:FPL. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• 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, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - BLP with no indication of notability. Jogurney (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable footballer. Does not pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Sina Dehghan

Sina Dehghan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BLP1E: only known for being sentenced to death due to blasphemy allegations. HyperGaruda (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• delete No evidence of lasting notability, just famous for one thing.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• delete Definitely doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER and fails WP:GNG.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 15:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Improved by 86.17.222.157 such that deletion is no longer necessary. (non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 19:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Wang Ziyun

Wang Ziyun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Source searches (1, 2, 3), covering both online and offline sources reveal nothing but passing mentions with no in-depth coverage of his work, failing both artist notability guidelines and general notability guidelines. DrStrauss talk 17:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. There is more than enough available in sources in English to support an article (I've cited several such sources in the article), and I'm sure that there's a lot more in Chinese. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete outright. I am invoking WP:SNOW and saying there is no way this article could possibly survive AfD. Any recreation may be speedy deleted under criteria G4, A7...or probably G5, given the creator's history. —C.Fred (talk) 00:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Vicky (actor)

Vicky (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable actor. This article was originally a conflation of information about an actor (named Vicky Kadian) and a politician named Vikram Kadian. These do not appear to be the same person (the politician being rather older than 19). No reliable sources provided regarding actor Kadian's notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

As a further note, this person's IMDb data appears to be largely falsified. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete neither the unelected politician nor the actor are notable. The creator recently added the actor to top billing/high billing on film articles which have been around a while which previously never mentioned him in the articles and their references so he is either a bitpart actor or this is a complete hoax. The IMDb entry and imdb listed roles also seem a fabrication. There is also the possibility of sockpuppet activity. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Withdrawn The author has moved the article back to draft space (with the edit summary It is not safe), so it is technically no longer eligible for deletion under AFD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• And btw the article was moved back to draft space (incorrectly) possibly in an effort to evade Afd. Another editor has fixed the move to draft -- but as there may be Afd evasion I'm not sure if it should be closed or not. I'll let others decide. Bouncing articles between name spaces is occasionally done to make them "safe" from deletion at Afd and we should be wary of that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Content is now at Draft:Vicky Kadian. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - I'm inclined to think the AfD should continue, to make the article eligible for G4 in the case it's recreated and the issues are not addressed. I'm not really seeing much, at least in English, to indicate this person should be notable, and really there's not much on the draft itself that really blows A7 out of the water, and looking at their IMDB (likely written by the person themselves, given the "personal quote"), it looks like a lot of exceedingly minor roles, some un-credited, and many unnamed. GMG^talk 20:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Vikram Kadian

Vikram Kadian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable politician. Unsuccessful candidate who never actually held office. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete unelected politician who does not pass WP:NPOL at this time Atlantic306 (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete: subject currently fails notability per WP:NPOL. Maybe in future. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. People do not automatically get articles on here just for being non-winning candidates in state legislative elections, but this offers no evidence whatsoever that he has preexisting notability for other reasons or that his candidacy was somehow more notable than everybody else's. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 08:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Moving (Young Paperboyz album)

Moving (Young Paperboyz album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Simply fails WP:NALBUM —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:NALBUM honestly i dont know why the article was created at the firt place Samat lib (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Parking on This Side

Parking on This Side (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced and virtually unreferenceable article about a film. While there's a potentially valid notability claim if the article were sourced properly, an "honourable mention" is not compelling enough to grant it an exemption from having to be sourceable -- but I can't locate any solid referencing for it in any of the news archive databases I have access to. Literally all I can find is two brief blurbs about it in The Varsity, the university student newspaper of the institution where the filmmaker was a faculty member, neither of which addresses anything about the film besides the fact that it existed. And other than that, all I can find even on Google is Wikipedia mirrors and other "sources" that probably got their information about it from us rather than vice versa. The filmmaker is notable enough for other things that his article isn't going anywhere (although it does need referencing improvement), so this film can certainly be mentioned there (and already is) -- but we can't keep a separate article about the film as a standalone topic if we can't reference it. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. NikolaiHo^☎️ 04:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Young Paperboyz

Young Paperboyz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No claim of significance. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Article fails to meet up with primary notability polices and guidelines governing the wikipedia environment as per WP:GNG and appears to be promotional in nature. It should be also observed that a case of WP:WALL may be in place with this article ; Mayor Boss.—Celestina007 (talk) 10:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete: I used Google and Bing, and scrolled down to the third pages, could not find one significant coverage. I wonder how this article survived for so long without any maintenance tag. Darreg (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - the sources provided on the article fails to meet WP:BIO, and WP:GNG . Samat lib (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC) Samat lib (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Lieke Van Houten

Lieke Van Houten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Although the subject of one brief Dutch-language feature, this individual does not meet the "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" standard required for inclusion in Wikipedia. This page has been twice speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7 and may qualify again. This page may also be the product of the sock farm of an undisclosed paid editor: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rosslinch89. Peacock (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Simply not notable (yet?). duffbeerforme (talk) 12:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete far below the notability threshold for models.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Slim burna. If the artist article at some later point in time is deleted, this must follow the same route. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 05:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh Na Na Na

Oh Na Na Na (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable songs which fails WP:NSONG. Article's footnotes are primary sources which lacks in-depth coverage. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete:non-notable song from a non-notable artiste. Its high time we start taking WP:NMUSIC seriously. Enough of unremarkable musicians on Wikipedia. Nothing tangible from Google news. Darreg (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• redirect to Slim burna, the artist, per ATD and CHEAP. Taking Kard and adding another "na", then slapping a pair of mammaries on the front doesn't satisfy the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Particpants may wish to be aware of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slim Burna (2nd nomination). L3X1 (distænt write) 03:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Shikoku Soccer League

Shikoku Soccer League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't seem to have significant coverage in reliable sources. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 16:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Other regional leagues have even further sources, but the ones I created are the problem. I'm at least perplexed.Whispered11

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - This is a little tricky because the structure of Japan's football league system is a bit different. First, WP:FOOTYN states that "All leagues whose members are eligible for national cups are assumed notable." In Japan, the national cup is the Emperor's Cup. The teams eligible for that are J1 and J2 teams, a JFL seed team, and the winners of 47 prefectural tournaments. While the champions of each of the regional leagues like this one are not automatically entered in the national cup, each member is certainly eligible and, in fact, the Emperor's Cup representatives of the four Shikoku prefectures are mostly from this league (3 of the 4 this year, for instance[12]) because these are the best of the teams in the region. For all intents and purposes, then, I think this satisfies the requirement (as do other regional leagues). Michitaro (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep per Michitaro appears to pass WP:FOOTY per All leagues whose members are eligible for national cups are assumed notable. Teijin SC the champions in 2016 in this league is taking part in the 2016 Emperor's Cup .As they participates in the Emperor's Cup they are notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep as above. GiantSnowman 08:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Naija Boss

Naija Boss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

7 years after its release, this AfD nominator could not find anything substantial about the album. It basically fails WP:NALBUM. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Article fails WP:NALBUM and is non notable nor remarkable.Celestina007 (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NALBUM allmost 100 percent of the sources provided on this article are promotional press release . there is NO reliable significante coverage about this album .Samat lib (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Naija Boss Techno Reloaded

Naija Boss Techno Reloaded (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I could only find press release. Album did not chart thereby failing WP:NALBUM and no critical reviews could be found to meet WP:INDEPTH. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete: All I can find are announcements such as this. For an album released in the 2010s, I expect more critical reviews to be deemed notable. The fact that the album wasn't even nominated in any of the many semi-notable musical awards in Nigeria is also a pointer to non-notability. Wikipedia is for noteworthy albums, not one such as this. Darreg (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete: - fail WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM Samat lib (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. A Train^talk 08:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Life of the Boys

Life of the Boys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Album did not chart thereby failing WP:NALBUM and no critical reviews could be found to meet WP:INDEPTH. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 08:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Greatest Hits (Young Paperboyz album)

Greatest Hits (Young Paperboyz album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Album did not chart thereby failing WP:NALBUM and no critical reviews could be found to meet WP:INDEPTH or WP:GNG —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG Samat lib (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Craig Lee Smith

Craig Lee Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Never made a first-team appearance for Portsmouth in any competition as the article alleges; article probably written by a friend or the person themselves. No grounds whatsoever to suggest notability. Monty (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as the only claim to notability is an obvious hoax. Judging by Google, he does exist, and does play soccer at least recreationally, so this could also be a WP:BLP violation. Smartyllama (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Vanity page of a nearlyman. False information, easily verified as didn't happen. Fails GNG, fails NFOOTBALL. Apparently plays football but clearly not at a notable level yet. ClubOranje^T 09:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - only claim to notability in the article is demonstrably a lie -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - per Smartyllama. Fails WP:GNG & WP:NFOOTY as well. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Shraey Khanna

Shraey Khanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of any notability. One ref has been deleted, another is YouTube and the others are wholly promotional copy. Nothing here speaks to notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete not notable and sources are unreliable. Capitals00 (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO upcoming a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

PG Paper Company

PG Paper Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about an unremarkable paper company written by undisclosed paid editors. No significant coverage; all refs are routine coverage of mundane business happenings. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -- if this one sinks, a similar promotional article, Poonam Gupta, with a photo of the PG nameplate will live on. Common SPA editors. Rhadow (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete But after thisis deleted,I'll nominated the bio. The simultaneous editing of articles on a firm and on its principal is a hallmark of promotionalism DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete as excluded by WP:NOTSPAM and a terms of use violation. Non-notable on top of that. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete As an apparent violation of the terms of use, as spam, and as a non-notable company. AusLondonder (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Draftify. In anticipation that article has a potential to be a well developed article at some point in time. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 05:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Grey Council

Grey Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fictional plot element with zero refs and zero indication of significance outside its fictional universe. Before someone suggests 'merge to Minbari#Government', I'd point out that merging unreferenced content is not very helpful. Sure, we can expand that section by dumping that article there, but it only makes it more likely the Minbari article will end up in AfD eventually, with a likely outcome of 'remove unreferenced/OR' content. And do note that referencing this to primary sources or 'encyclopedias of B5' is not going to help that much - see discussion here and in the next thread on that page. PS. To be clear, I am not objecting to 'merge and redirect', but I don't think there is anything to merge since the content of the article is unreferenced fan OR - a soft deletion by redirecting would be IMHO the best option. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep I have plenty of offline refs to prove this. Nominator making another Babylon 5 fictional element deletion nomination after this is simply inconsiderate. Jclemens (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep per Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Draftify and allow the article to be fully developed and resubmitted, assuming notability can be proven._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Draftify as better alternative to keep. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Merge to Minbari. Regardless of the nom statement, it looks like this article covers a lot of the history of the Minbari, which is almost entirely absent from the parent article, so a merge would make that article whole again. This article probably doesn't have enough of a claim to notability, and the parent article would have a significantly better one. This would be a valid {{R from subtopic}} to the #government section there. Draftifying wouldn't solve the issue that this really should be merged with the parent article and wouldn't promote the development of text for a merge.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Veronica Hendrix

Veronica Hendrix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST. No significant stories, no awards, no commentary by peers. Only sources I see are blogs. Rogermx (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete as unsourced BLP. Hamtechperson 00:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:JOURNALIST Subject is a journalist could not find anything significant about her .now every journalist is not notable.Could not find anything to meet WP:GNG either.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. A Train^talk 08:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

HiHaHo Video Enrichment

HiHaHo Video Enrichment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH, mainly sourced to the companies website, promotional tone. Kleuske (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 08:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Armin Kutzsche

Armin Kutzsche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm the creator/author of the article, but on further reflection I've realized that it doesn't really meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. He doesn't have many citations and worked as a middle manager/scientist at some pharmaceutical companies. The main source (Kürschners Deutscher Gelehrten-Kalender) basically includes anyone with a habilitation or who is a (full/associate) professor, so it isn't very selective. Thkafra (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment, couldn't find Kutzsche at german wp. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

no worries, the Frankfurt Wiki has an German article. First: it's not the Frankfurt Wiki founded by Saviour1981. Second: not sure if it was a "clean" export from the {{de:WP}}. Maybe it will help somehow. Just to give a hint. Nice weekend, everyone. --93.223.179.77 (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The question is whether he meets WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG here at the English Wikipedia. It's pretty clear that he doesn't meet any of the nine criteria listed in WP:ACADEMIC and it's also pretty clear that he doesn't meet WP:GNG given that Kürschner's (which includes almost anyone working in academia) is the only real source. The article has never existed in the German WP; the Frankfurt Wiki has a very local focus and much lower notability standards than Wikipedia. --Thkafra (talk) 09:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. I find the nomination statement persuasive. The accomplishments listed are too low-level and there is no evidence of passing WP:PROF. In particular the citation counts are too low to demonstrate notability through high-impact scholarship. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Willie Levesque

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Willie Levesque
• Articles for deletion/Willie Levesque (2nd nomination)

Willie Levesque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Disclaimer: as an alum and a one-time Northeastern University Huskies season ticket holder, I have a basic affection for the subject, a hardnosed forward whom I can see across my study from a 2000-01 team poster on my wall. But notable he is not. He just barely squeaked by on the 2013 AfD on the then-reading of NHOCKEY, and no one could then find any evidence he met the GNG beyond routine sports coverage explicitly debarred from counting towards notability by WP:ROUTINE. The standards are tighter now, and with an ephemeral and undistinguished career in the minor leagues Levesque does not meet them. Ravenswing 12:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete I created this article and in view of the changes to NHOCKEY I think it should be deleted. RonSigPi (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - If even the page creator agrees it fails today's WP:NHOCKEY then I think it's a clear delete. Shelbystripes (talk) 03:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG and fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and also WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk)
• Delete A sound nomination based on failing to meet the GNG. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

List of National Hockey League controversies

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/List of National Hockey League controversies
• Articles for deletion/List of National Hockey League controversies (2nd nomination)

List of National Hockey League controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Originally AfDed in 2013, and @Resolute:'s rationale there serves well enough for my rationale now: "This article is a hopeless and indiscriminate mishmash of unrelated events grouped by someone's POV idea of what constitutes a "controversy", therefore falling into the realm of original research by synthesis." Ravenswing 11:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. Our use of the term "controversy" is, for better or worse, widespread. Category:Sports controversies, for example... I'm sure we could dig up some prior XfDs addressing the feasibility of using the term as a classification, and either revisit the conclusions or at least avoid repeating the same arguments. postdlf (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There are numerous controversies in hockey every year, pretty much any time a coach is fired or perhaps not fired and when a referee blows a call (or there is a close call) in a crucial game. A few controversies I can think of off the top of my head that are not here are the Rocket Richard suspension (if we are including suspensions, and most suspensions involve some element of controversy, including whether there should have been a suspension and whether it was too harsh or harsh enough), the Dale Hunter suspension (ditto), the Phil Espositp for Jean Ratelle and Brad Park trade (if we are including trade, and there are obviously many, many controversial trades), the Bruins entering the stands at Madison Square Garden to fight with fans, the Rangers hiring Bryan Trottier as a coach (and there have been many controversial coaching hires, although perhaps not engendering as many as firings). I don't see a way this subject can be focused enough to be useful - a full list of notable controversies for which a few references could be found would contain hundreds and hundreds of elements, and trying to cut that down would just be based on particular editors point of view. Rlendog (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oh aye. I wager that if the article was more widely known, we'd get all manner of "It's a Major! Controversy! that that bastard ref blew the call that cost my team the playoff series!!!" bits, whether or not anyone but the hometown press thought so. Ravenswing 14:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• I found 3 newspaper articles calling an offsides call in game 36 of the 1996/97 season between two last place teams "controversial." It must be added to the list! Rlendog (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - No definable criteria for inclusion. Carrite (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - While I disagree that there are no definable criteria for inclusion, as we could define the list as controversies that would otherwise merit their own article, the list would then contain only one entry in it's current form. Unless there are more articles floating around that are not in this list, I see no reason to keep at this time. Hamtechperson 22:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Primefac (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Maria Lewis

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Maria Lewis
• Articles for deletion/Maria Lewis (2nd nomination)

Maria Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I am the subject of this article and would like this article deleted for a few reasons, as firstly I'm not notable for a Wikipedia article to exist about me and secondly the article contains medical information about myself that I would prefer be kept private. I contacted Wikipedia directly and they said this is the best way to go about deletion. Thank you. MariaLewis (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I completed the AfD for the user. ansh666 09:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE - a search for sources shows passing mentions or tabloid coverage, which is reflected in the current article. We're not going to suffer bias in the sum of all human knowledge if we remove this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Significant in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable sources (e.g. 1, 2, 3). The medical information is also covered in reliable sources (e.g. 4, 5, 6), so deleting this article wouldn't assist in keeping such information private.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

That looks more like tabloid journalism to me, and the medical information does not have to go in this article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I will leave others to judge the sources but she currently has links to the medical information on her own webpage and her own linkedin, so the fact that she is supposedly requesting the deletion of this article on medical privacy grounds is not particularly credible.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep I think the person meets Wikipedia requirements with significant in-depth coverage as pointed out above most of the sources show this. A couple like the Linkedin aren't normally good sources but in this case are just used to show career/jobs they have had. As for the medical information, the person spoke publicly about them themselves and are in the public record, just because they maybe having regrets now doesn't mean they shouldn't be referenced here. Article was voted keep before [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Lewis] after being submitted by one time user previously and think it should be voted keep again. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 21:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete If the subject of this article wants the article deleted (see above), we had better go along with the subject's request to have the article deleted. Vorbee (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Why had we better do that? What if Donald Trump requested his article be deleted?--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd tell Trump he should have thought about that before spending 5+ years spamming Twitter with his "look at me, I'm right and everyone else is wrong" tirades, then proceeding to be the most unpopular US President in living memory .... which is something this person hasn't done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about it once, no editing disputes on that article would be beneficial... J947^{( c ) (m)} 05:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 11:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE Samat lib (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

That is not a policy for use in a deletion discussion, but merely states what a closing admin might be inclined to do in certain circumstances.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - First, when I find things like this within a few clicks I tend to stop looking fairly quickly. Second, if she wanted to establish that she was non-notable, then she shouldn't have gone to such extraordinary lengths to try to show everyone how notable she is. Third, if you don't want people to know you had a stroke, don't become a spokesperson for the National Stroke Foundation and tell your story in as much gory detail as possible for the public.

For someone who appears to spend every waking minute trying to insert themselves into public view, I find a deletion request on privacy grounds wholly incredible, in the literal sense. Given the deletion rationale from the first AfD, and the contribution history of the editor who started it, I strongly suspect that the actual issue here is that someone found out that they can't control the content of their own Wikipedia article and decided to throw a tantrum and try to get it deleted. GMG^talk 15:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Concur with Pontificalibus and GreenMeansGo, subject has given many interviews and even written a number of articles regarding health issues, so I find that part of the delete rationale spurious. I also see there is an amount of information published, but no more than expected for someone in entertainment industry and deeper examination shows that much of it is primary, self published, trivial, user contributory or unreliable sources. Article history indicates WP:COI and WP:OWN and WP:SPIP issues. Looking past all that, she actually fails subject specific notability guideline WP:AUTHOR, she hasn't done anything outside of ordinary journalism in her day job and I can't find any policy that says having a medical condition makes one notable. ClubOranje^T 10:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable subject with plenty of reliably sourced citations to support the article's information. There is no reason to delete this article.--SouthernNights (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - While I generally am opposed to biographical subjects dictating WP content, it seems to me that a reasonable case can be made for a GNG fail here. Carrite (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Not exactly a resounding consensus here so I'm happy to restore this to someone's userspace if good sources can be found offline. A Train^talk 08:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Preston Symphony Orchestra

Preston Symphony Orchestra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a community (non-professional) orchestra based in a northern suburb of Melbourne. While it's been around for nearly 70 years, it does not seem to have any notability beyond the local community. There are a bunch of other community orchestras in Melbourne (e.g. South Melbourne, Essendon, Maroondah, Stonnington) that are similarly not notable for WP purposes and do not have WP articles. For context, Melbourne has two professional symphony orchestras (Melbourne Symphony and Orchestra Victoria) and various other professional classical music ensembles. Boneymau (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• delete fails WP:BAND. 2 gnews hits says it all. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep 70 year history -> there will be offline sources.--doncram 02:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:MUSTBESOURCES. please show these offline sources. LibStar (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

even a search of trove.nla.gov.au which is one of Australia's most indepth search engines for old sources found nothing indepth. there was one 1956 newspaper article with a passing mention. therefore doncram's claim for offline sources is highly questionable. LibStar (talk) 06:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• delete fails WP:BIO Samat lib (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. A Train^talk 08:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hit List (2012 American film)

Hit List (2012 American film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG as per WP:BEFORE nothing found in a search. Domdeparis (talk) 10:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Wanna One. Arguments from brand-new users were discounted. Amongst the experienced editors there is a rough consensus to redirect -- anyone who wishes to break this out into a standalone article would do well to wait a couple of months before seeking consensus on the article's talk page. User:Moon Gin is advised that brevity is the soul of wit. A Train^talk 08:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Kang Daniel

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Kang Daniel
• Articles for deletion/Kang Daniel (2nd nomination)

Kang Daniel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Re-created article which was deleted by AFD 3 months ago, still fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Redirect: Redirect to Wanna One until individual has reached suitable notability to require his own article. Abdotorg (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Keep: Kang Daniel is notable enough for separate article since he has a few more solo activities which are unrelated to his band. Silvermist95 (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Keep: Kang Daniel qualifies under notability criteria with solo appearances in TV shows, magazine covers, and solo brand ambassador promotion outside his current band.HimeChan (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Variety shows guesting appearances are not notable in any way, can you provide some reliable sources where he is in-depth covered, i.e. not just regular 1-2 paragraphs about band activities? And why do I smell sockpuppeting there, suddenly a whole bunch of his fans registered to Wikipedia to vote "Keep", new accounts with 3 edits should not be allowed to vote IMO. Snowflake91 (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the purpose of the talk page is to discuss this article's qualification to be published. This is from wikipedia's talk page guidelines "discussion should be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia." You are accusing someone (me particularly) of having another agenda. I am a fan of the individual, hence I volunteered to help with the edit. I am also a user of the website, which qualifies me to have a say. I offered my view, but I do not appreciate being accused of "sockpuppeting", especially when my profession is actually a technical writer/editor. Please be mindful of that. The initiator and me ("minor" editor) have proposed criteria why he is considered of notable personality. HimeChan (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Well I apologize, but two newly created accounts just popped out of nowhere and posted almost the same "Keep" message within 15 minutes of each other, so it looked kinda suspicious. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Someone has reported me for "sockpuppeting" so let the administrators check if I share the same IP Address as the other two users above. But I would be glad in this case to prove that I don't use duplicate accounts. --Moon Gin (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Not you, per WP:DUCK test I suspected that HimeChan and Silvermist95 are the same persons. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

And I am willing to prove that I am not the other you claimed. Check my IP address if you must. I volunteered to be an editor for the Kang Daniel article for the main goal of publishing a wiki page for this particular celebrity.HimeChan (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

As the initiator of this page in issue, I have started the page from a draft and add points to showcase his notability, including but not limited to his solo activities as main cast of television shows and him being featured in both social-economic magazine and fashion magazine. This version of page has undergone review by reviewer RileyBugz who holds new page reviewers right thus signifying his/her experience in reviewing new articles and it passed his review for the field of living person biography. As for sources, I have included sources from English and/or Korean articles which back up every single statement that is included in this article. I hope this could be a consideration factor for other Users to keep this page and/or even to help improving it. Also I will continue to improve and update this page even under the current dispute situation. Thank you. Moon Gin (talk)

As I already said at the talk page, just because one reviewer passed the draft article without checking the AFD history, it does not mean that the article should not be redirected back. Yes, evertyhing is sourced (even though you included several references which are highly unreliable per WP:KO/RS, like Soompi.com or Koreaboo.com), but that does not mean that the subject is notable, none of these sources are in-depth coverage, just a routine short reports of his activity by gossip unreliable sites, like this, this, or this. How many solo music releases does he have? None. Snowflake91 (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you need an in-depth coverage to give confirmation about a particular activity. As long as a source is reputable then you can use it to back up your statement. Plus none of these sources are meant to back up his biography as a whole but to back up and legitimate the partial part of the article. For example in statement about his participation in variety show, I put source of news regarding the confirmation. If you demand me to remove the sources from Soompi or Koreaboo, I can still add sources from news outlet to back the fact stated on the article. Also if solo music release is required for a member of a group to have separate page, why this page is not challenged for deletion? Also while it is true that an article that has been passed by a reviewer still needs to be monitored, it also speaks that in the eyes of the said reviewer (which holds the right to review and in a way experience in reviewing) this article is worthy of notability and hence should be a positive point added to keep the article alive. Moon Gin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

No, you need in-depth cover to establish notability and not to confirm his activity, see WP:GNG or WP:BAND. I just stated that some of the sources are unreliable, but this is not the big problem with this article after all, notability is the problem. About BamBam, he most likely passes acting criterias (one role in a movie and one role in a drama, two if you include one cameo appearance), but WP:OTHERSTUFF is not an argument anyway, if you feel that his article should be deleted you can freely create an AFD for him (if you don't know how, I can help you with that). About reviewing – do you seriously think that reviewers check every draft article in detail before they publish it? There are so many draft articles, they probably just check if the biographies are sourced and publish it, if there are no enough sources they dont, the reviewer definitely didnt go and check if he passes WP:NMUSIC or WP:BAND. The article is good anyway and I understand why it was accepted, it has sources for every line, is neutral, does not include irrelevant material, but notability is the problem. Snowflake91 (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

so if I can include his article on Chosun Ilbo which features extensively about him and his rising popularity, will it pass as in-depth cover to establish notability? Also can you give me an example of sources from other Kpop band member which qualifies as in-depth cover?Moon Gin

In addition I would also claim that the subject in this article can be categorized to qualify in the following WP:BAND criteria :

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself -> he has constant features on multiple Korean news outlets including but not limited to a special feature about himself on a reputable Weekly Chosun from The Chosun Ilbo group which has its own Wikipedia entry

9. Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition -> he is the winner of a national scale and televised music competition in South Korea which television show receives extensive media coverage and high ratings

12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. -> Aside from his extensive variety guesting, he has been confirmed as main cast in 2 variety shows Moon Gin (talk)

Also for WP:GNG I can say the subject in this article can be categorized to qualify the condition of having received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As per this guideline of reliable source, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers even in electronic form are considered reliable sources, which is the exact source that I put on this article. Moon Gin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide sources for those "multiple, non-trivial, published works" ? "Significant coverage" doesnt mean a short report that "Kang Daniel would appear as a guest on xxx tv variety show", this is just a routine report, not in-depth coverage of the topic. I think that number 9 criteria is for awards for excellence in music, such as Mnet Asian Music Awards, Melon Music Awards, Golden Disc Awards and other major award shows, not a TV reality series, Produce 101 Season 2 is not really a musical competition but a tv show. Number 12 criteria has a word substantial in it, and I cant see anything note worthy to his career in appearing on those weekly variety shows, Korea has literally hundreds of those variety shows where all Kpop band members regularly attends. Snowflake91 (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It defines a major music competition and not a major music award. Plus I would qualify Produce 101 as the same of American Idol which is both music competition and TV show. And what will be your example for "Significant coverage"? And I completely disagree with you for no 12. Not all Kpop band members regularly attends nor being a part of a main cast for a variety. It is noteworthy for a single member of a band to appear extensively in multiple variety shows and even secures 2 main cast positions for himself. Many other Kpop band members never have offer for variety main cast. Moon Gin (talk)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture "Eradication of variety shows" section, there was a lengthy discussion with a consensus that those variety shows are not really notable, guesting should not be included at all in articles, not that this would assure notability. Sixteen (TV series) is the same thing as Produce 101, its a reality show and not a musical competition, articles for TOP3 finishers in Sixteen were already deleted at one point due to lack of notability. Above you requested to see in-depth coverage in reliable source – something like this maybe? Snowflake91 (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit : I have added more sources of in-depth coverage in reliable source in the bottom, please check Moon Gin

You need to distinguish between inclusion of variety show guesting in the article and the fact that he has appeared in variety shows as two separate entities for debate. I do agree that inclusion of variety show guesting in the article is not worthy, but my case point is not that. I want to show that he has passed criteria no 12 on WP:BAND Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. in which he did by appearing extensively on radio show and television shows which include variety guesting, music show performances and guest presenting, radio guesting, and even variety show main casts. You need to understand that these are valid point to confirm the criteria no 12 as mentioned above. Moon Gin —Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Appearing on two shows (remember that Korea does not have 5 different shows, but more like 100) is not really "substantial", if that would be enough to warrant an article, then basically every member of top 10 groups in Korea would easilly pass notability criterias, yet you have Twice where only 1 out of 9 has an article, and they are at least as popular as Wanna One, same goes with BTS, they are deffinetely the most popular act in Korea in the last year, yet half of the members does not have an article, and they also appears on those shows a lot. Why? Because appearing on variety shows and tv game shows is not enough. And note that "music show performances" makes Wanna One notable, not him, he just appears as the member of the group. Snowflake91 (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I would argue that while there are more than 100 variety shows in Korea, not every shows cast Kpop band member as main cast and/or inviting them as a guest. Even among members of top band there some who never appears in variety shows. In this case I still think that Kang Daniel appearance in 2 variety shows as main cast not guest is a proof of him being a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.Moon Gin —Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

SAMPLES OF ONLINE IN-DEPTH COVER FROM REPUTABLE SOURCE WHICH CONFIRMS THE SUBJECT NOTABILITY (And reasons to keep his Wikipedia page alive)

1) Added source of in-depth cover to establish his "notability" here a full article about the subject in the article taken from website version of the same article featured on Weekly Chosun. Moon Gin (talk)

This is a good article and source, are there more articles similar to this? It needs to be multiple (2 or more) in-depth articles in reliable sources. Snowflake91 (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

2) Added another source of in-depth cover to establish his "notability" here a full article published by Sports Donga and Naver which recounts the possibility of solo career path for the subject in the article and a comparison to singer Rain due to his high solo popularity Moon Gin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

3) Added another source of in-depth cover to establish his "notability" here a full article and here a full article published by OSEN and Ggilbo to cover result of a research by The Korean Business Research Institute in which the subject in this article was listed in rank 2 of brand reputation rankings among male advertisement models in South Korea for September 2017. Moon Gin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

4) Added another source of in-depth cover to establish his "notability" here a full articlepublished by OSEN as interview article of Master Key PD regarding his experience to work with the subject in this article on the project Moon Gin (talk)

5) Added another source of in-depth cover to establish his "notability" here a full articlepublished by InStyle Korea as the official announcement about the magazine featuring the subject in the article as its cover plus a photo spread and a featured interview Moon Gin (talk)

None of those four are in-depth coverage like the first article, they are short reports of his activity, two articles (#3 and #4) are not even solely about him. Snowflake91 (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

You need to count at least no 5 as part of in-depht coverage as InStyle coverage is mainly in printed version and you cannot find them online to cite. However the confirmation of an interview in the issued and printed magazines is a form of in-depht coverage of the subject itself Moon Gin(talk)

I would also argue that no 2 while not as long as the no 1 is not a report of his activity but an analyses of the subject potential to follow a solo career. It focuses on his potential and not his activity Moon Gin(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

6) Added another source of in-depth cover to establish his "notability" here a full articlepublished by Naver as an analyses of diversified reasons and the factoring source of the subject in the article popularity --Moon Gin (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

SAMPLES OF PRINTED IN-DEPTH COVER FROM REPUTABLE SOURCE WHICH CONFIRMS THE SUBJECT NOTABILITY (And reasons to keep his Wikipedia page alive)

Note as all the following sources are from printed sources, I don't cite link to a website but rather to picture files and/or social media posts which show the published printed works of the in-depth coverage in printed form

1) Added pictures file as evidence of in-depth coverage of the subject in the article on InStyle printed publication as found here and here This entry also serves as complement of the entry no 5 on the online publication above --Moon Gin (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

2) Added pictures from Instagram account as evidence of in-depth coverage of the subject in the article on Woman Chosun printed publication as found here --Moon Gin (talk) 03:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

'PLEAS OF REASONS TO KEEP THIS ARTICLE'

1) The challenger of this article said that 2 or more in-depth coverage regarding the subject of the article are required to establish the notability of the subject and I have provided at least 2 (and arguably more) legit in-depth coverage regarding the subject from reputable publications, which include but not limited to 3 reputable printed publications in South Korea (Chosun Ilbo, Woman Chosun, and InStyle Korea) and a reputable online news outlet (Naver News)

I agree about that, although the coverage seems purely trivial to me, but the sources are reliable. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

This confirms that the challenger of the subject notability in the article, in this case Snowflake91 has acknowledged that the initiator of the article, in this case myself, has managed to provide sources of material which qualifies as in-depth coverage from reputable sources and showcasing the notability of the subject in the article. --Moon Gin (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

2) This article should be categorized to be worthy of notability as it qualifies for WP:GNG and WP:BAND. It should be categorized to pass point 1,9, and 12 (and arguably more points) on WP:BAND criteria and it meets WP:GNG notability criteria for qualify the condition of having received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Therefore the argument of the challenger of this article should be considered invalid

Maybe he actually passes point 1, but definitely not 9 or 12. As I already said, appearing on a game shows and variety shows has no notability of any kind, as discussed at WikiProject Korea talk page. It needs to be substantial broadcasting segment; what kind of importance does this weekly guesting on a variety show, alongside other 50+ kpop idols which also regularly guest, have to his career? He is most known as the member of Wanna One, and even if he appears on 50 variety shows, he will not be notable for appearing on those non-notable shows, but will still be known only as a group member. About point 9, Produce 101 is not a major music competition of any kind, it is a reality tv show to determine Wanna One members. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Disagreement regarding point no 9 of WP:BANDfrom your point of view. Produce 101 qualifies fully as a major music competition as it is a national scale competition in the field of singing/music performing with actual elimination, musical performance to judge, and winner selection. The fact that it is aired in the television as a television show does not change the music competition nature of it. The previous example given by you such as Mnet Asian Music Awards, Melon Music Awards, Golden Disc Awards ARE NOT MUSIC COMPETITION but rather MUSIC AWARDS and they should be applicable to point no 8 of WP:BAND instead of no 9. By this argument I propose that the subject of the article has passed at least point 1 and 9 of WP:BAND.

The challenger of the subject in this article has acknowledged that the subject qualifies for at least 1 point in WP:BAND which is the minimum requirement to define notability of a musician. Hence the original claim of the challenger of the subject that this respective subject fails WP:BAND should be disputed. Combined with the statement no 1 above, this can be indirectly said that the challenger of the subject has moved steps towards acknowledging that the subject of the article is NOTABLE and WORTHY to have a standalone Wikipedia article. --Moon Gin (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

3) This article has been reviewed by a reviewer who holds new page reviewers and deemed to pass the review. While it is true an article that has been passed by a reviewer still needs to be monitored, it also speaks that in the eyes of the said reviewer (which holds the right to review and in a way experience in reviewing) this article is worthy of notability and hence should be a positive point added to keep the article alive. --Moon Gin (talk) 04:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Why do you always put so much weight on the fact that the article was "reviewed" by someone with the pending changes status? Those users are not "elite" or something, there are 6,842 users with this status, virtually anyone with 300+ edits and no history of vandalism / blocking etc. can become a reviewer if you put the request at WP:RFP/PCR. I can assure you that the reviewer did not check in detail if the article passes all notability standards, because the user probably don't understand Korean and therefore didnt search for Korean articles since there is basically no articles about him in reliable English-language media. I already saw an article about much less notable person than Kang Daniel, with only two or three sources from unreliable gossip sites, being "reviewed" and published from the draft. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I put more weight in this fact because, unlike your statement above regarding the reviewer, which is purely your assumption about the reviewer, the fact that the page has been reviewed and that the reviewer at least holds the experience to review are FACTS. Also it is to showcase the fact that I have followed the mechanism of making the draft and submit it for review first. --Moon Gin (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

If you want to see what I am talking about, try to make a similar draft about some other Wanna One members, for example Bae Jin-young which is deffinetely not notable to have an own article, and include only unreliable Soompi and Allkpop sources, and the article will still be published, the reviewer will not check if sources are reliable per WP Korea criterias, and will also not check the notability criterias. Mostly, the reviewers only check if WP:BLP article contains inline citations, and if it does, the article will be published, everything else (notability, content issues etc.) can be later discussed at the talk page Snowflake91 (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay point taken. I will not include this on my reason. But from point 1 and 2 above your agreement towards some points show that you are now inclined to develop acknowledgement towards the notability of the subject in the said article. Don't you agree? --Moon Gin (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Redirect: Redirect to his group. Nothing has changed since the last AfD. It seems like some users are using the draft option to recreate articles which were deleted only a few month ago. I wish the reviewers would pay more attention.--Thebestwinter (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

"I wish the reviewers would pay more attention." - Exactly as quoted, if you have observed with careful attention, then you would have noticed that the initiator of the article has presented a strong case why the article should be kept. The contents of this one are different with the previously deleted one, with reliable sources to back up statements. The initiator has also gathered printed sources with in-depth look at the character and impact of Kang Daniel to the current Korean entertainment scene.HimeChan (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Who said that the content in the previously deleted article was the problem? The problem was, and still is, notability, not the content. And no, in the current article there is nothing which would suggest that the person is notable, no solo musical releases of any kind, almost entire "Career" section is band-related or Produce 101 related, no acting career, only a couple of variety shows appearances, which are not notable. Snowflake91 (talk) 08:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The notability of the subject can be proven by the in-depth coverage of him that I have presented (that you have also agreed above) and some notable career milestone like being a public figure from entertainment field who is featured in a reputable social economical magazine (an uncommon norm for a social economical magazine to feature a Kpop band member) and also being chosen as the first male celebrity to be in the cover of a reputable fashion magazine. You keep trying to bring acting thing here, which I think is a simplification of a career notability identification in general. The definition of notability should not encompass only acting career but also other aspects of his career.--Moon Gin (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Now look at the things the other way – WHY does he need to have an own article? If you delete all Wanna One related activity, which is already listed at Wanna One, and delete all detailed reports of Produce 101 Season 2 perofrmances and ranking, which is already listed in detail at the show's page, you will be left with only 2-3 sentences, about how he went to the high school (who doesnt), and how ge guested on a variety show. Does this needs an article? All this can be easily included at Wanna One#Members. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

You need to check the contents of article first and compared it to the previous one. Just because an article is recreated after the previous one deleted under the AfD it does not mean the latest one is the same as the previous one. Contents have been added and updated and points have been presented on the discussion above to show why this article is different from the last one and worth to be kept.--Moon Gin (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

As I said above: Individual still fails WP:GNG and WP:NMG and should be redirected for the time being. Jeon So-mi (last years Produce 101 winner) had her article created and redirected several times until she reached actual notability standards, the same goes for all of I.O.I and Wanna One members - it should be no different in this case. Abdotorg (talk) 11:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The history section of this article is entirely about activities from Prod101 and Wanna One which can already be seen at the main articles, the individual has not released any music as a solo artist so cannot apply for NMG, and in regards to the filmography section that is completely irrelevant following Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Korea/Popular_culture#Eradication_of_variety_show_sections as all appaearances/casting is a result of winning of prod101. Abdotorg (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Keep: The creator has managed to present the notability of the subject in this pageVegitonk (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - With extensive news coverage and his solo TV appearances, subject easily passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 08:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Redirect - as Snowflake91 has addressed substantially, sources are mostly trivial mentions of him in the group Wanna One. No substantial notability as an individual yet. Evaders99 (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Keep: The subject is notable enough for his own article based on the points that the creator has presented Elyse16 (talk) 06:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: 4 out of 5 users which voted "keep" are newly-created single purpose fan accounts, which registered solely to vote here and made no other edits outside Wanna One topic. The sentences by "Vegitonk" and "Elyse16" are also basically the same in a different order. Looks like a WP:Meatpuppetry, apparently this AFD was posted on some kind of a social media / fan forum with encouraging his fans to register and vote for keep. For example, just within two minutes of searching the biggest K-pop forum, OneHallyu, I have found (Redacted), which suggest that Moon Gin and HimeChan knows each other from the fan forum, as they are both fans of Kang Daniel. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I have been very transparent (in my earlier reply to your accusation) regarding my volunteering as an editor. I worked with the initiator (even while the article is on draft phase) to provide my expertise in editing and proofreading, as well as being a native English speaker from Canada. And it is obvious that as the editor of the page, I would vote "KEEP" to get the page published as I believed that this specific celebrity has passed the notability qualification. The initiator has provided reliable sources with in-depth feature on Kang Daniel, which you have acknowledged. He had various projects outside his group and expansive coverage in the entertainment industry in South Korea.HimeChan (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

If you check HimeChan reply earlier and the edit history of the page, you would know that we both know each other. HimeChan helped editing the Kang Daniel page even when it was still in draft page because I asked the user to use the expertise as a technical writer to check the wording of the Kang Daniel page. Also the other users coming here not necessarily prompted by encouragement to vote here. With his current popularity and notability in Kpop, it is not too surprising that the creation of Kang Daniel page has invited people (most notably his fans and/or Wanna One fans in general) to visit his page, and when they notice the AfD template above the page, some of them (which probably passive users of Wikipedia before) decided to add their opinion on the matter. Plus the probability of a Kpop lover and/or Wanna One fans to know and to check about the page and to learn the existence of this AfD and to participate here is obviously higher than non Kpop lover and/or non-fans. --Moon Gin (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

ADDITIONAL NOTE : Adding that the objection of this article by "Snowflake91" is inconsistent in defining the notion of notability. At first the challenger challenged me to provide in-depth coverage about the subject from reputable sources as proofs of the notability of the subject. But after I manage to present the proofs of his notability above, the challenger still insists to continue the AfD even after he acknowledges the proofs I presented here. If the notability is the problem of the page in the first place, should it not be over when I can present the proofs of the subject's notability as demanded by the challenger and the Wikipedia WP:GNG and WP:BAND --Moon Gin (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

His fans, which registered to Wikipedia just to vote for keep (as you even confirmed yourself) and acutally doesnt know anything about notability or other Wikipedia things, should not be counted in voting at all since they are obviously biased, why would they vote for delete if they are his fans anyway? I know that techically everyone is allowed to participate and vote, but if I now find 5 people and tell them to register here and vote for "Redirect", how ridiculous would that be? And the three users, which voted for redirect (Abdotorg, Thebestwinter, and Evaders99) all have over 1,500 edits each, and 20,000+ edits altogether, so they are definitely more familiar with everyting than newly-created fan accounts with 5 edits. And, I cannot withdraw and close nomination now since there are 3 supports, this could be done only if everyone would voted for Keep. Snowflake91 (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

And also, I dont want to look like a stalker on OneHallyu forum or something, but the user who recently voted for keep, User:Elyse16, descritpion on her page says "the mother of 10 cats", while the user Moon Gin has posted on OneHallyu forum, " I love cats myself and I own a shelter for stray cats at my house." Another coincidence? Two Kang Daniel fans, each owning many cats and editing this page? But yeah, if the IPs are dynamic and change each time or if accounts are registered from some other computer with a different network, than nothing can be proven though. However, if the three users which voted for "redirect" agrees, than I will withdraw the nomination since Moon Gil tried hard to prove notability and the guy is at least somehow notable to barely pass GNG I guess, but I am not happy with trying to "recruit" people for voting and either creating accounts yourself, or encouraging his fans to create them. Snowflake91 (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if there is any rule in Wikipedia regulating the condition for a user to vote or not. But as you said earlier when you keep trying to put down the reviewer which has reviewed the draft of this page, even the most experienced users can make mistake in regards of notability. That is your own words. Plus there is also "experienced user" who vote for "Keep" too which why I think the notion of notability here is really subjective. Also if you are fair game, you should have withdrawn the nomination when you acknowledged the samples of in-depth coverage that I presented because I believe "Thebestwinter" and "Evaders99" have not voted that time. I did not state this earlier because I try to assume your good faith as an editor and as someone who has experience in AfD. But if you have acknowledged my samples of his notability, shouldn't you withdraw the nomination immediately and not waiting until more "Redirect" votes coming?--Moon Gin (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination cannot be withdrawn if at least one user supported the nomination, and one user voted for redirect before anyone else posted at this page, within two hours after the afd was created Snowflake91 (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

But if you have acknowledged my samples, you can be more proactive in admitting your changed view regarding the debate. That or you can contact the user voting to withdraw his/her votes before more voting comes. Or to change your strong statement on the top of the article regarding the subject completely fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND Or you can (probably) ask the admin to close the nomination and change the issues of the article from AfD to article in the need for improvement instead. Or you can actually try to contact me first and discuss the matter and ask me to show the subject's notability before quickly resorting to AfD. You would have gotten the proofs you wanted. --Moon Gin (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Also if you think that I use multiple accounts here please kindly check my IP and find out if me and the user that you questioning are the same person. Using personal hobbies, interests, and possible similarities to deduce that two persons are the same are all hypothetical. So unless you can have definite proof of me using multiple accounts then what you say is merely negligible.--Moon Gin (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I did not encourage fans or anyone to vote but I can't stop them from voting either. The article regarding the subject obviously has been known to other users out there, experienced or not, fans or not, and they come to vote here. Now if there are more of suspected fans voting here I guess that is purely logical as the ones who will visit the subject's page are people who are searching of the subject (which in this case mostly composed of his fans).--Moon Gin (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Why did you put this up for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard? This is only for disputes about the content of the article and not for AfD processes, there is absolutely nothing wrong with content in the article. And what do you mean "the challenger refused to withdraw the deletion nomination"? Firstly, I already told you that the nomination CANNOT be withdrawn by the nominator if there are mutliple support voters, secondly, the AfD is closed by an administrator after 7 days has passed, and thirdly, you have to inform the user (in this case me) if you are mentioning him at Dispute resolution noticeboard. Snowflake91 (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Because after this long discussion, it's clear that you jumped too quick in proposing this AfD. As I said earlier and as we both worked on the draft of this article, you could have tried to contact and inform me or ask and demand me to improve the page or to present his notability proofs. You quickly resorted to the AfD but at the same time you also later acknowledged my proofs and still did nothing to "soften" your initial challenge to the page itself. As this is my first AfD, I don't know how long will it lasts and hence I ask mediator to help resolving this quickly with the best solution and mediation of the debate.--Moon Gin (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I have every right to put the article to AfD; not only the article was previously deleted just 3 months ago with clear support (4 votes for redirect, 0 for keep), there were also nothing in the article that would indicate that Kang Daniel is notable, you should have included that links about in-depth cover in the article in the first place, instead of bad soompi or allkpop sources. Snowflake91 (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes you do have the right but as I said earlier you could have opted for more communicative way first, which you did not even try. Also as you also monitor the draft, you should have notified me not to put Soompi or AllKpop as sources (though I believe, for every Soompi/AllKpop sources I put, I also put another source from reputable publication as companion). And you can even advise me to put these in depth covers in the article to establish his notability and avoid AfD. But even though you could do all these things (as you followed and even edited the draft), you did not try to communicate it to me at all.--Moon Gin (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Also even if the article was deleted by AfD 3 months ago, it does not mean this new article is the same as the article from 3 months ago. Contents already updated and improved, and if necessary I can put links about in-depth cover in the article to even emphasize its notability. --Moon Gin (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

LAST NOTE : I have done everything I can to argue to establish proofs about subject's notability (which is acknowledged by the initial challenger of the page) and that this subject is worthy of the page. I will leave it to the administrator and/or mediator to bring a decision. I will comply with whatever decision that would be given. Thank you. --Moon Gin (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Keep: Kang Daniel is notable enough for separate article. I think there were enough CREDIBLE sources provided by the creator to prove his/her point , and his/her arguments were solid . I hope this issue won't be dragged any longer. EternalRose0 (talk) 11:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello to another newly-created Kang Daniel fan account. Are you from OneHallyu, Twitter, or some other fansite? And how exactly do you know that the creator of the article is female if this is not mentioned anywhere, is it possible that you know each other, no? Snowflake91 (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I assumed she is a girl since it's a Daniel fan . But I could be wrong and that wouldn't be nice so I will edit it . Thanks for pointing it out. And No I don't know that person . I was just surprised Daniel doesnt have a wiki page yet . And I read the whole discussion . — Preceding unsigned comment added by EternalRose0 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 08:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Brent Gauvreau

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Brent Gauvreau
• Articles for deletion/Brent Gauvreau (2nd nomination)

Brent Gauvreau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

NN hockey player, not only no evidence he meets the GNG, but almost sourceless-BLP article. Fails tighter standards for NHOCKEY than existed in the past. Ravenswing 07:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - Has had a varied and notable career. Over 5,900+ Goole results. He meets criteria #3 having played for the ECHL. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Upon what basis do you claim he's had a "varied and notable career?" Look at the top G-hits (Yosemiter correctly looked for news hits instead), and you get various stat pages, YouTube fight videos, the subject's Facebook page, his Linkedin page, his Twitter page, his Instagram page ... in short, the sort of Google display that has us rolling our eyes at AfD at wannabe actors, garage bands and the like. What is lacking is the "significant coverage" the GNG requires. Ravenswing 19:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. @Me-123567-Me: That comma is in the wrong place, he gets 5,900 mentions and even lower if looking for the hockey player. These are mostly of the WP:ROUTINE game coverage, stats pages, fights, and transactions variety. He gets a few sentences from a local paper about getting hired as an assistant coach (also routine). He gets four mentions in News and Newspapers, but none with significant depth as required by GNG. Yosemiter (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• You're correct. I have fixed the comma. My apologies. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete, fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Played most of his career in the ECHL, but doesn't appear to have "Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer or First Team All-Star)" as the standard requires. PKT(alk) 16:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG and fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Playing in the ECHL doesn't meet NHOCKEY #3, being a top-ten all time career scorer or First Team All-Star does. -DJSasso (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails the notability standards for ice hockey players, with criterion 3 requiring 'preeniment honours', which he hasn't got. Even if he did pass that guideline I'd still !vote delete due to there being one news article I could find even mentioning him ([13]), let alone having significant coverage. Practically all the first-page results doing a normal google search are hockey databases, fact profiles, and social media pages, with the two exceptions being the Wikipedia page and a Wikia page, which are all easily unreliable (see here). Pretty easy to decide on this one. J947^{(c) (m)} 01:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Seema Midha

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Seema Midha
• Articles for deletion/Seema Midha (2nd nomination)

Seema Midha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

May not meet WP:NBIO. Also relevant is WP:NFRINGE: if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers. Was previously deleted in 2014 as a result of an AfD. —PaleoNeonate – 06:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —PaleoNeonate – 06:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —PaleoNeonate – 06:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —PaleoNeonate – 06:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —PaleoNeonate – 06:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• delete nn.~!Dlohcierekim (talk)
• Delete - I don't see that much has changed since the previous AFD... advertising supported by iffy sources. Blueboar (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete FAIL WP:BIO Samat lib (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete being the author of the first book on mobile number prediction does not establish notability for it's author. Mduvekot (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Note to closer - If deleted, this redirect would also become orphan: Seema Midha (Tarot Reader). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Cholinergic crisis. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 05:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

SLUDGE syndrome

SLUDGE syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Completing a nomination for 24.218.109.176, whose edit summary was {{tq|this "disease" is just a silly mnemonic for Cholinergic_crisis. ansh666 06:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Well, it's clear we don't need this as a free-standing article, given that it's a content fork of Cholinergic_crisis. All that remains is to decide whether we delete it outright or whether there's anything worth merging. It actually contains 3 refs against only 1 for Cholinergic_crisis, so those may be worth using. The 6 enumerated pathological effects may also be worth mentioning and wikilinking over there, so I'd say a Merge and redirect was the right solution. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Merge Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Duber Uribe Castro

Duber Uribe Castro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are examples of photos, deadlinks, and references that fail to mention subject. reddogsix (talk) 05:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete: pure self-promotion, fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. The examples of "journalistic excellence" are two photos submitted to articles written by other people. The reference to ABC.com in Paraguay doesn't mention the subject. Notimillos (also non-notable) is a blog founded by the subject to provide news and gossip about his favourite football team, Millonarios in Bogotá. Everything else is blogs – absolutely nothing that demonstrates notability of the subject. Richard3120 (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete: artcle fail WP:BIO Samat lib (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Arion Investment Management Limited

Arion Investment Management Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG John from Idegon (talk) 05:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete it's an advert for a startup. Cabayi (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete clearly WP:PROMOTIONAL, fails GNG DocumentError (talk) 07:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete: there are two issues here: promotionalism and sourcing to show corporate notability. I can't find any significant coverage from a source search. Let's analyse the sources it cites:

1. Is a Bloomberg entry which confers no notability whatsoever other than that it exists.
2. Is a source preceding the startup's opening and assumes inherited notability from the personnel background i.e. Morgan Stanley. But notability isn't inherited.
3. Is another source just about the launch.
4. Is yet another source just about the collapse of the preceding company.
5. Confers no notability at all as it's just a subscription page.
6. Is another source about the launch.

So the only sources which are both reliable and give significant coverage are #4 and #6 but it's a case of a crystal ball article. At the moment, we can't establish notability - maybe once they've been trading for a while they will become notable but at the moment it's a delete from me.

DrStrauss talk 09:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete as per above. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP and is promotional. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails notability. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 21:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete A spammy article about a company that has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - Oooky corporate spam about a company that fails GNG, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 11:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. A Train^talk 08:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

New Zealand 'A' cricket team in India in 2017

New Zealand 'A' cricket team in India in 2017 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article is not suitable as it lacks the notability criteria. Probably A Cricket tours are not taken into consideration according to WikiProject Cricket Abishe (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete it's an A-team cricket tour, and so not notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Per the above. Also note that this user has created a few non-notable cricket articles for tours and competitions, simply because they exist. I've dropped a note on their talkpage a few days back to invite them to post at WT:CRIC first to seek clarification before they create anything else. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. There are other articles about A-team tours because they include first-class and List A matches. I agree, however, that the quality of the article is terrible so perhaps it could be removed for that reason, but not for notability. WP:CRIN includes: "all clubs and teams taking part in senior cricket matches are automatically qualified under the conditions of WP:N and WP:ORG". Jack | ^{talk page} 15:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. Well, the article about the A cricket tour can be proved as a notable one but the author of the article didn't provide the scorecards relevant to the List A and First Class cricket matches and instead of it, he provided scorecards relating to other International cricket tours, for example:- Australian cricket team in India in 2017-18. So I propose it for deletion. Abishe (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Abishe. You cannot vote twice. At WT:CRIC you say your objection is based on incorrect scorecards being cited, which is not a reason to delete and, in any case, the errors have been corrected. Please specify where at CRIC does it say "A team tours are not taken into consideration" because they meet CRIN (see above) providing they play FC/LA matches. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 06:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep This tour consists of First-class / List-A games, so on that basis it passes WP:CRIN, but it falls down on a lack of references, so may fail WP:V Spike 'em (talk) 08:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I regret for my second nomination for deletion and I respect the words said by you all. I actually didn't try to delete this article when I just viewed at it, but only due to incorrect scorecards and citing no sources were the main factors for me to decide it for a deletion. As a member of WikiProject Cricket, I understand the fact that cricketers who play in List A, First Class cricket and T20 cricket are notable according to the guidelines and on the other hand, I am not quite sure that List A cricket tours are eligible for notability guidelines. If I had done wrong I apologise for it. Thanks. Abishe (talk) 09:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• I am trying to improve this page. I will cite the correct scorecards and references related to this article. Thanks. Aditya tamhankar (talk) 18:15, 1October 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947^{(c) (m)} 04:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete not notable enough. this is just a cricket tour Samat lib (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Not sure if I need to !vote down here again, my view hasn't changed. There are multiple, independent online sources covering this tour (some of which are now linked in article to demonstrate WP:V) including indexes here and here

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. Many of the keep arguments here are rubbish but there isn't a consensus to delete. If anyone has a mind to nominate this article again, it would be helpful to read Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion first. A Train^talk 07:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Kyle Kulinski

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Kyle Kulinski
• Articles for deletion/Kyle Kulinski (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Kyle Kulinski (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Kyle Kulinski (4th nomination)

Kyle Kulinski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't cite any independent reliable sources for notability; citations are links to self-produced YouTube videos. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. Do you have an argument that addresses notability rather than article quality? --Michig (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

  The argument is made quite clearly, because WP:BIO is pretty clear, as is WP:RS; a biographical article that isn't supported by independent reliable sources quite simply has to be deleted. Self-published YouTube videos are not evidence of notability. People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. That doesn't currently exist in this article, and a quick search doesn't find any other substantive reliable sources discussing him. The burden at this point is to provide evidence that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable... and independent. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. The previous AfD was closed as no consensus 4 days ago. Reopening this so soon is unlikely to be productive. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• The two !votes were not based in policy; one essentially amounted to "he'll be notable someday," which is literally WP:CRYSTAL. That's not how we write biographical articles. A biography without independent reliable sources cannot exist on Wikipedia, per fundamental policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete This statement from above says it all. Self-published YouTube videos are not evidence of notability. Notability has not been established. Fails BIO and GNG. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 02:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Don't Delete/'Strong Keep' - Kyle gained notability as a co-founder of Justice Democrats.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Passes GNG as associated with Young Turks. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Did the nom try Deletion Review? I think re-nomming an AfD 3 days after it was closed (and low !Voter turnout to boot, I would of relisted it) is not the way to go. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

"Passes GNG as associated with Young Turks" - passing GNG requires independent reliable sources. Do you have any independent reliable sources that can support the writing of this biography? That's what we're looking for. An entirely-self-sourced biography is not appropriate for Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

• WP:GNG also states that the coverage needs to be independent from affiliated parties, and from the searches I've done when creating, AfD'ing and editing the article, there just isn't enough independent coverage yet. Hopefully this will change in the future as I personally believe he is above and beyond notable for his own article, but that time has not come yet. Buffaboy ^talk 00:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Soft Keep again but Comment in same time of why this back again?, Already got renominated within 2 months for failed getting reliabe sources is oblivous but again there no time limited of getting this again deleted and if where more mainstream sources like these three are reference or related to him. (enough last one is unfair to him and his organization but enknowledge his existance in sametime without connected to TYT) – Chad The Goatman (talk) (contribs)  19:42, September 25 2017 (UTC)
• Weak delete Unfortunately while I personally believe the subject is notable, due to a lack of independent coverage, it's just too soon. Buffaboy ^talk 00:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure I guess, But it's would help that there very few mainstream sources to him before Justice Democrats fame. – Chad The Goatman (talk) (contribs)  22:04, September 25 2017 (UTC)

• Delete there is a lack of indepdent coverage in reliable sources, so we should delete, notable means the subject has been notable, and Kulinski has not been noted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Any individual with his own IMDB page in my opinion is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. That being said, I believe this article needs serious work with links to third-party sources to establish notability.Firstclass306 (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• No, an IMDB page ≠ notability. This is not my opinion, it is a rule. A significant role in a significant film = notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Keep- per above reasoning. Kyle gained notoriety as co-founder of the Justice Democrats--Valkyrie Red (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete, it seems to be a little WP:TOOSOON. Being a co-founder of Justice Democrats is a claim to notability, as is having the online program Secular Talk, but note that that article redirects to The Young Turks#TYT Network, presumably for lack of WP:SIGCOV. Lack of WP:SIGCOV is also the reason I'm saying delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep  Not sure that we need so many references to youtube in the article just to state his personal viewpoints, but the evidence is available in Google searches that readers want an article with reliable information.  Good Magazine writes at [14], "...one of the progressive left’s most outspoken voices...a popular figure in progressive politics".  Unscintillating (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Well that's the first direct article about him that I've seen yet. I don't know why it didn't pop up in my searches. Buffaboy ^talk 14:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

To answer your question, it showed up on the first page of a Google web search for ["Kyle Kulinski" bio MSNBC].  Unscintillating (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

No I know that, I mean the search I did a month or two ago. Buffaboy ^talk 23:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Reference

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947^{(c) (m)} 04:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Article seem to meet WP:GNG Samat lib (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep I added the Good Magazine article and a few other sources. He googles as a notable subject. Trackinfo (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Löschnazis in the English Wikipedia, interesting. There are also articles about him in other languages. From a non-native speakers view, his channel is very useful for me to learn about the political system in the US. --W-j-s (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - Appears to meet GNG. Carrite (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - How can a living person appear to meet GNG without a single reliable source in the article? Bearian (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Not sure if you meant that literally, so I took your point that youtube and twitter are not WP:RS for a BLP, and removed that material from the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Outstanding elements of Babylon 5. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 05:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Phased plasma gun

Phased plasma gun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

PROD was removed with no rationale. Article is entirely non-notable WP:FANCRUFT that fails WP:NOTPLOT. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Merge to Outstanding elements of Babylon 5, which is a summary for unique, yet not individual notable fictional elements from the series. Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Jclemens:Nothing about that article shows that it's anything besides WP:LISTCRUFT as well. I count a grand total of zero reliable, secondary sources in it. It will probably end up being AfD at some point too._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

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

The lack of current sources doesn't mean sources don't exist. Sources likely exist to show PPG meets GNG, and I have the resources in my personal library to demonstrate that, but 1) it's not the best thing to have as a standalone article, in my opinion, and 2) Regardless of whether PPD could be defended as meeting GNG or not, the larger article is certainly more defensible. Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I find it doubtful that minor fictional cruft such as that article would be enyclopedic, even as a whole, it seems more like what you'd put in Wikia. But if it truly is then I would recommend sourcing it to back up your argument._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

If we had more editors who would improve existing articles, I would spend more time doing so, instead of only putting out fires. Right now, fixing up low-interest fictional elements articles isn't a huge priority: They're harmless, and as long as WP:ATD is followed by redirecting or merging NN stuff instead of deleting it, there's not too much risk. Jclemens (talk) 04:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep The topic is notable; for example, see A Dream Given Form. Andrew D. (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Merge as above. A Google Books search turns up a number of references, but these all appear to be fictional discussions of a weapon that has never existed and which doesn't appear to have enough non-trivial discussion in those sources to warrant a standalone article. Probably. KDS4444 ^(talk) 11:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Merge to Outstanding elements of Babylon 5, just like Jclemens said. The search on that page shows a ton of references. I think after a merge the articles future could be a "Cross the bridge when we get there".AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment -- Isn't this the same discussion we had yesterday about Pulse rifles? Rhadow (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. I love B5, but most of this type of stuff belongs on B5 wikia, not here. This was a minor prop in the show, with zero notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Note that the above editor has nominated the merge target, Outstanding elements of Babylon 5, at Articles for Deletion during this process. This creates an unusual, possibly undefined situation if this is selected for merge to that article, which is subsequently deleted. Jclemens (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I think it's pretty clear that if that article gets deleted, there is no realistic merge target, so this article should also be deleted as well._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
      • It's just as obvious to me that a merge close here would trump a delete close there, as it would modify the article under consideration in the middle of a discussion. But like I said, an undefined situation. Jclemens (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect to Outstanding elements of Babylon 5; not independently notable. If the target article survives AfD then great; if not, the redirect would be deleted. I would oppose a "Merge" or a "Keep" outcome; this is a minor prop and a stand-alone article is unneeded. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Note I've added two RS'es, removed much of the excess plot detail, and so the topic is arguably demonstrably notable in its own right. Regardless, I remain convinced that a merger is the optimum outcome. Note that these edits fundamentally change the basis on which the above delete !voters have opined, and further demonstrate that there is nothing wrong with the article which cannot be remedied through the normal editing process; those preferring an alternative other than merging are encouraged to review the improved article and restate an objection to such a merge, if it stands in the face of this improvement. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Merge to Outstanding elements of Babylon 5 or any split of that article per Jclemens. This probably doesn't need it's own article, but should be part of some article about the B5 mythos ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect/Merge to Outstanding elements of Babylon 5. Not independently notable z'L3X1 (distænt write) 01:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947^{(c) (m)} 04:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Merge with article Babylon 5 - this is just one component from this television series and it does not really have to have its own article. Vorbee (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep or merge per Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. A Train^talk 07:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Parabanks Shopping Centre

Parabanks Shopping Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:CORP and GNG. a run of the mill small suburban shopping centre LibStar (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:MILL. Small, and insignificant shopping centre that isn't notable enough for an article. Ajf773 (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep there are multiple news articles over an extended period. Paul foord (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment, it may not appear at List of largest shopping malls, but at 21,000 sqm and 70 stores, its not small, more like a medium sized mall. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - this centre is as notable IMO as a number of other sites already listed in Category:Shopping centres in Adelaide. Yes it is a stub, and neglected/underdeveloped, but probably wouldn't be an AfD nominee if it had been more developed in the past. A second option I would be ok with (in preference to deletion) would be to retain and merge the content with Salisbury, South Australia, which at present, lacks a retail/commercial section. Thanks. JabberJaw_JAPAN talk 23:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. please demonstrate how it actually meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

To quote from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, "an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement".  Unscintillating (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete/merge It's not a formal guideline, but in practice any shopping center with an area less than 100,000 square metres (roughly,1 million square feet) is almost never found notable, unless it's the only one in a wide area, or a historical monument, or otherwise distinctive. The best course probably will be to make use of it for a shopping section in the city article, as mentioned above DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Rachel Collinson

Rachel Collinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

non notable political. Never attained any electoral office, and the refs are mostly campaign press rleases DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Spokesperson for a minor political party, has never attained elected office and is not notable for any other aspect of her life. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. Neiltonks (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. Being a spokesperson for a minor political party is not an WP:NPOL pass — it can get a person into Wikipedia if she can be properly sourced as passing WP:GNG for it, but it does not guarantee her an article just because she exists. Being an unelected candidate for Parliament is not an NPOL pass either; people have to win elections, not just run in them, to be deemed notable because of the election per se. But this is referenced 80 per cent to primary sources and blogs, and the only source that is actually a reliable one is not about her, but merely namechecks her existence a single time within coverage of something else. This is not how you get a person past GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Robert R. Barron

Robert R. Barron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

no evidence for notability -- just a small amount of PR. that's all his media appearance samount to DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - I got nuthin. GMG^talk 18:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - The current article is a recreation of one that was previously deleted. There is a CBS story from 2015 on Barron but the other links either don't give any in-depth coverage or are press releases. Notability has not been established when judged against WP:BASIC. Drchriswilliams (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Bandago

Bandago (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

trivial local company--refs are just local pr and notices DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete as promotionalism for promotionalism, the sources are republished press releases as part of the common public relations. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 16:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. A Train^talk 07:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Winter Park Village

Winter Park Village (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable shopping center that fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Just a WP:MILL shopping center. No indication of notability. MB 03:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep It may not be a notable shopping center but it can be improved with dedicated editors. Its reliability on a primary source is the only real issue I find but with a quick google search, I found many sites talking about this center. I think a cleanup tag is a better option. AmericanAir88 (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• I Improved the article a bit. I added an image, added references, and expanded sections. AmericanAir88 (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for improving the article. However, my view remains unchanged. The mall definitely exists, but what encyclopedic value (taking WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:GNG, and WP:MILL into account) does the location have? It appears to only be a locale for non-notable chain retailers and restaurants.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• The mall seems have a big history behind it, making its notability expand farther than local audiences. The Winter Park Village replaced an aging mall "The Winter Park Mall" which had a huge history behind it. I believe that dedicated editors can eliminate WP:MILL with simple expansion. For WP:GNG I believe this article has encyclopedic value. I did some research on this mall and found that it is a huge part of the town of Winter Park. This mall brings all tourism and actually where most residents of Winter Park live. I made the "Tenants" Section less like a directory. I believe we can save this article. AmericanAir88 (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep, further sources established. The redevelopment was discussed in several books that I have cited in the article, and I have included several articles from the Orlando Sentinel that expand beyond WP:ROTM coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete The usual cutoff is a million sq ft, and this is only half of that. The articles are local articles about a local project, and show no indication that anyone outside the immediate area would be interested. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• @DGG: Size isn't the only factor. Again, note that at least one source confirms this to be the first mall in the Orlando area, which is a very strong assertation of notability. Likewise, the several books discussing its redevelopment at length. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I have re-read the on-line sources, and they do n say that its precursor was the first fully enclosed air-conditioned mall in the area. So let's write an article on its precursor, which might possibly be notable. Usually we prefer the latest reiteration, but that doesn't hold when the earlier one is the more significant. It's not just a change of title, but of content--that is, a different article. DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@DGG: Precedent is that if a mall is redeveloped and changes name, then the article covers all iterations of the property. If the original mall was notable, then the article should stay and cover all iterations. For instance, The Village of Rochester Hills covers its prior incarnation as Rochester Village Mall. And I would think that the book coverage of the redevelopment easily passes the "significant coverage" threshold of the current incarnation. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Absolutely agree with TenPoundHammer AmericanAir88 (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Killing Joke discography. A Train^talk 07:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Requiem (Killing Joke album)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Requiem (Killing Joke album)
• Articles for deletion/Requiem (Killing Joke album) (2nd nomination)

Requiem (Killing Joke album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to be independently notable. FamblyCat94 (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect to Killing Joke discography. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 07:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Keyword Tool

Keyword Tool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This doesn't strictly fall within any of the CSD categories, but it's entirely non-notable software. agtx 17:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 19:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 19:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep. I scaled through the references and the topic as well. I guess this passes Wikipedia:GNG.Slovnimbom (talk) 07:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete relatively trivial software. Essentially all the articles listed just include it as one possibility among many others. That's not substantial coverage. DGG ( talk ) 18:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Note this is undisclosed paid editing by socks and most likely qualifies for CSD G5: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Japanelemu. SmartSE (talk) 09:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. A Train^talk 07:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Vali Boghean

Vali Boghean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The sources don't really bear out a claim of notability. We've got:

• Three song clips - not really worth our time dissecting these
• An announcement that the subject will be attending a jazz festival... on the site of that jazz festival (independent sources, anyone?)
• Passing mention on his employer's website (for starters, obvious lack of objectivity)
• Some IMDb cruft that doesn't even mention the subject
• Something about an award - on the site of the people handing out the award, with no independent verification as to its significance
• Yet another jazz festival announcement on the site of the festival that's hosting him (once again: clearly not independent)

In summary, there is no "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". The subject seems utterly peripheral based on the sources supplied, and so the article should be deleted. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. No quorum here but the nomination is not a particularly full-throated argument for deletion. No prejudice against speedy re-nomination -- but with a more convincing argument, please. A Train^talk 07:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Jonathan Woodhouse

Jonathan Woodhouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not sure that it meets the notability requirements, seems like a vanity article. Swing-time (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J947^{( c ) (m)} 05:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Khizar Humayun Ansari

Khizar Humayun Ansari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

not really much in terms of significant and in-depth, independent coverage of subject from reliable sources. Nothing in article, nothing found on a web search to satisfy GNG. Only source in article is a mention by association due to his famous son Rayman60 (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

What about the books he has written? Did you check foreign language sources? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I haven't looked in detail yet but note that the Journal of Islamic Studies described his book The Infidel Within as "an impressive contribution to scholarship in the field". Philafrenzy (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep As well as being a professor at Royal Holloway (arguably enough to confirm notability), Ansari won the 'UBL Literary Excellence Award for English Non-Fiction' at the 2016 Karachi Literature Festival. That should be enough to match criterion 4 in WP:AUTHOR. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

It ought to be enough but evidently not for the nominator who has also AFD'd Sarah Ansari, professor of history at Royal Holloway and noted partition scholar. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete contrary to the beliefs of some, being a professor at any institution is not enough on its own to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

  There is a difference in how the term is used in the UK to the US. In the UK professorship is restricted to those who have made a significant impact on their field (criterion 1 of the notability guideline for academics). Richard Nevell (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep The article is poorly done, with few references and a muddled and badly formatted list of publications, however, I see:

A sole-author book published by Oxford University Press

The Journal of Islamic Studies described his book The Infidel Within as "an impressive contribution to scholarship in the field".

He wrote a chapter for The New Cambridge History of Islam, they don't let just anyone do that.

There is evidence in the publications that he has had impact outside academia in his area of expertise and so may meet criteria 7.

Philafrenzy (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Strong keep Notability is clearly established by his OBE as per WP:PROF criterion 2. Everymorning (talk) 02:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Trout - For everyone who voted keep in this discussion and didn't fix the fact that the only source in the article was the Daily Mail. Otherwise keep. Meets NPROF. GMG^talk 17:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. I'm old enough to remember when "business-to-consumer magazines" were called "catalogs". :D A Train^talk 07:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Great Magazine of Timepieces

Great Magazine of Timepieces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The creator contested the PROD on my talk page, so I've courtesy de-PRODed it. All the sourcing in existence is either connected to the organization, so excluded by WP:ORGIND or solely promotional, so excluded by WP:SPIP. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. I see no claim of notability for the magazine. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep it. I am the author of the article. Obviously I think that the article deserves inclusion ;) With the respect to the volume of sales of the magazine, it should be kept in mind that is is a french/english speaking magazine, mainly dedicated to the 20% of switzerland that speak French, this is more or less 2 million people. The current distribution is thus roughly similar (as a ratio) to a US based magazine that sells 3,200,000 copies. This is also one of the only watch magazine that can be found in french speaking press house. Also, to make things clear, I'm not working for the magazine (I am not even in the same country).
• Comment (before I make up my mind) A quarterly with a total press run of 23,000 in ten editions? It's also in English so the small-country-Switzerland argument doesn't work for me. One interview with the boss? I'm not seeing the WP:CORPDEPTH, really. Rhadow (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete -- no indications of notability or significance; the article is almost entirely promotional in nature. Does not meet WP:SIGCOV & WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. A Train^talk 07:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Alicia Yoon

Alicia Yoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Zero evidence of meeting notability standards DGG ( talk ) 07:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Zawl 17:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Strong keep, extensive coverage in reliable sources. I have added many to the article, including 20 paragraphs from the BBC ([15]). Antrocent (♫♬) 23:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - There is extensive coverage in reliable sources. I mean, the BBC has a whole article about her. I can't understand how the subject of the article isn't notable. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 13:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete -- a BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail, resulting in a directory-like listing for an unremarkable entreprenuer. The BBC story is an interview. I also note that Peach & Lily has been recently deleted, with the deleting admin noting that the creator was suspected of being part of a sock farm. We generally don't keep articles on entrepreneurs whose only claim to notability is being CEO of a nn company. The WP:Promo concerns also apply. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

This article discusses the subject in detail:

• Clift, Cortney (12 July 2017). "Alicia Yoon: The Korean Beauty Pioneer Combining Two Worlds Into One". Brit + Co.

Note that Peach & Lily was deleted via WP:PROD, which does not carry much weight as such a deletion can be overturned upon any request. Antrocent (♫♬) 03:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -- the brit.co source listed above is from Brit + Co, which is described as "a media company that inspires, educates, and entertains real women with a creative spirit through content, online classes, and creative products". For all we know, it's a promo piece that could have been placed there by the subject's publicists. I'd treat it as a WP:SPIP source. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep: The sources quoted already show Yoon has made an important mark as an entrepreneur. Google reveals numerous other secondary sources if these are needed.--Ipigott (talk) 10:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep I strongly think this should be kept, not least because of the extensive BBC article (which is not an interview). As others have said already, there are plenty of other reliable sources, some of which have been identified here. It's an obvious keep for me. Dysklyver 14:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep with perspective of editing. If it is possible to expand this article with information from different websites in English, Greek etc. and describe activity of Yoon's company in the same article. The subject may be notable, because Alicia Yoon is featured in many sources, but the article clearly needs editing.Tarja Kardash (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

— Tarja_Kardash (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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. A Train^talk 07:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Mineral Gap

Mineral Gap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable building created by a non-notable company. There is some press out there, but not enough in my opinion to justify an article. If the owner of the building were notable enough for its own article, a merge might be justified, but that is not the case here. The coverage is either trade press or primary source based interviews, etc. that are excluded by WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. Finally, I think regardless of analysis of sourcing, this article is a perfect example of the type of article that WP:NOTDIRECTORY is intended to prevent: there is not enough sourcing in existence to expand the article beyond a simple directory listing. Deletion is the best option in this case. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - The parent company, DP Facilities, is a notable data center construction firm. Their is sufficient sourcing for the topic. With regards to article expansion, the facility will be expanding in the near future which will likely generate additional coverage. The facility is the only one of it's kind in the area in southern Virginia, and was in part funded by the government to encourage technology growth. Articles may exist as stubs.Fundon1 (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete -- a WP:directory listing for an unremarkable data center. That the facility is "the only one of it's kind in the area in southern Virginia" is hardly a claim of significance. The coverage is routine, and the expected coverage of the expansion will likewise be routine. I don't see how this meet WP:NCOPR & WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete  The facility has only been open for a few months, and there is no reason to think that the facility is currently of interest to the world at large.  But notability is likely to be increasing, including in the plan to triple floor space.  It looks like it is already a bit of a landmark given its remote location, which will also likely increase.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'd be ok with redirecting it to Wise County, Virginia for now, but for a standalone article, it might need several years to show WP:SUSTAINED coverage.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - Pretty much everything is about the thing being built, which is routine coverage, and only really establishes that the thing was going to exists, and now exists. There's nothing wrong with stubs, but if a stub is all that can possibly be written, then it's likely the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. No prejudice against userfying if Fundon1 would like to save their work and maybe try to expand the article over the next few months if more news comes out including more in-depth coverage. GMG^talk 17:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Please userfy the article if a delete is the outcome.Fundon1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - this appears top be a very ordinary office park. How is this even remotely notable? Bearian (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Its a data center in an office park, not an office park, btw.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• This is a Tier 3 secure data center with "anti-ram fencing, wedge barriers, a perimeter blast berm...counter-IED protective measures...[a]...dedicated force of armed security personnel, [and] an advanced tactical command center".  "[A]s the state’s next secure technology corridor, [Southwest Virginia region] offers: affordable power, connectivity, an ideal climate, a location away from population centers and flood zones, with room for growth."  It is currently the 16th largest data center in Virginia, in a state through which 70% of the world's internet traffic passes, in a county of population 41000 in the Appalachian mountains.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Travis Shredd and the Good Ol' Homeboys

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Travis Shredd and the Good Ol' Homeboys
• Articles for deletion/Travis Shredd and the Good Ol' Homeboys (2nd nomination)

Travis Shredd and the Good Ol' Homeboys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet criteria in WP:MUSIC, could not find reliable sources. Note that the link that is supposed to link to a record label instead links to a Zen-related topic. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - Oh god delete. I actually half expected it to be a hoax, but it turns out it's just some band. I love that their terrible website has a counter, so I can tell that exactly 1,759 people have ever clicked on it, and I loath to think that I will always be a part of that counter. I don't for a second buy the argument from the first AfD that getting on Dr. Demento one time establishes notability, if that's basically all you have. But I'm not finding anything that would suggest Dr Demento wasn't probably the high point of their career. I'm not even totally sure their "record label" actually exists. GMG^talk 17:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - not a lot in searches. Certainly not enough to pass either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The Things (Canadian band)

The Things (Canadian band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I have been unable to find any album reviews, concert reports or other reliable, independent sources with information about this band. I can't suggest redirection, because there are no articles about the musicians and I can't find a reliable source linking them to Kool Kat Records, which is itself a redirect. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. It appears the band split shortly after the release of their one EP in 1995 – Lorenz Peters does collaborate with Corpusse (although he's not an official member) on Toronto's underground music scene, and Dom Whelan played for a dozen years with what is effectively a Pogues tribute band, the Mahones (also of dubious notability). But one EP released over 20 years ago on a local label isn't enough to establish notability. The Kool Kat Records in question is not the same one as the Birmingham, UK Kool Kat/Network label, so a redirect is not applicable there. Richard3120 (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing here constitutes an WP:NMUSIC pass, and no sourcing means no WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - I can not find coverage to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BAND.  gongshow  talk  06:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - as the other editors have said, nothing in searches to show they pass either WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Libremail

Libremail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable and contains little if any encyclopedic content. Appears to fail Wikipedia's General notability guideline. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. The article reads as a product brochure, and no reliable secondary references are provided; the links are (mostly-broken) directory entries. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - searches turned up virtually nothing. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was to keep, only argument for deletion was made by nominator. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Forté Agent

Forté Agent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable and contains little if any encyclopedic content. Appears to fail Wikipedia's General notability guideline. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Half page review in NetworkWorld (July 28, 1997, p. 54), less than half page review in Computer Power User (January 2005, p. 73), multiple page review in PC Mag (won Shareware awards 1996; September 10, 1996, pp. 260, 261, 264, 266). There are also short news in other magazines. Plenty of coverage in reliable sources. I will try to improve the article, if I find the time. Pavlor (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 09:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep – This is a leading Usenet newsgroup reader program for Windows. It has a long history and it's widely covered in the computer press which of course has diminished over several years together with the decline of Usenet and NNTP itself. Deleting articles because of decreasing relevance is unencyclopedic – WP:RECENTISM works both ways. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Pavlor and Michael Bednarek have said it better than I could. Not just used for Usenet. Back before the rise of Twitter etc, there were privately run newsgroup communities based on NNTP, and my impression was that Forte Agent was the client that almost everyone used. Gpc62 (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment There is very little to actually suggest notability of the subject. Checking some references, some seem to be unreliable/self-published. Example: www.newsgroupreviews.com/forte-agent. The sources are required to be reliable according to Wikipedia's policies. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research.

@FockeWulf FW 190: Notability of the article subject is not based only on references used in the article. Please, check sources I provided above... Pavlor (talk) 05:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Pavlor: My concern is the notability and references along with maintaining a neutral point of view.

Google searches provided very little sources which could be considered reliable, some books also made some trivial mentions too.

Adding reliable references would address the issues on why the article should be deleted.FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – See also this nominator's AfD for Forté Internet Software. Pointy? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - for once a piece of software that, back in the day, even I have heard of (not that that's a criterion for retention). I think it's relevant to the history of Usenet, so was surprised there was no mention there. That said, it has been a challenge to find evidence to show that WP:NSOFTWARE has been met. There are recommendations of Forte Agent as a good alternative to Outlook Express on Google Scholar, suggesting this old software probably meets the guideline's description of "software with significant historical or technical importance (e.g. Visicalc) are notable even if they are no longer in widespread use or distribution." By contrast, I am unconvinced that the article on its makers, Forté Internet Software, which has been unreferenced for the last 5 years, merits the same benefit of the doubt. (@FockeWulf FW 190: - please sign all your comments so we know who is making contributions, please). Nick Moyes (talk) 09:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Another PC Mag review (in cover story about newsgroup readers, this time commercial version): October 8, 1996, pp. 164-165. Pavlor (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Another source, half page article in Maximum PC magazine (part of bigger article about "favorite applications and utilities of 2002"; January 2003, p. 58). Pavlor (talk) 05:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Fifths (song)

Fifths (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Music download cites are not reliable sources. The song did not position itself on a notable music chart nor was it covered in significant secondary coverage. Fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete/Redirect Cool beat but no RS to base notability on or write anything near a full article. Nothing on DJ Mag or similar EDM magazines. Nothing even on AllMusic.com besides the song list for the EP. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 01:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Every song that exists does not automatically qualify for a standalone article; certain specific markers of notability, such as charting and/or winning a significant music award, have to be attained, but those aren't present here and neither is any hint of reliable sourcing. I strongly suspect that many more of deadmau5's song articles suffer from the same problem, though I haven't investigated that. Bearcat (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - searches did not turn up enough to show it passes WP:GNG, and it certainly doesn't meet WP:NSONG. Redirecting to the artist's article would also be okay. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Disappearance of Linne Dominelli

Disappearance of Linne Dominelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A "run-of-the-mill" missing persons case sourced by databases and online public forums. Wikipedia is not a database for missing people, and there is nothing here that suggests long-term societal impact or coverage in diverse sources. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Sourcing provided + BEFORE doesn't reach WP:SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - Nothing to indicate either the person or the disappearance was notable. GMG^talk 18:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete -- an example of Missing white woman syndrome; no lasting significance or societal impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - yet another missing person article that has no place here, as per the nomination. - Sitush (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is NOT a true crime blog. My condolences to the victim's friends and family. Carrite (talk) 11:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Alex Shih^Talk 01:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Webster Public Relations

Webster Public Relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Deleted G11, contested at ANi [16] reposted from an offline copy it seems. Bringing here as a procedural solution for discussion of notability and spammyness . Legacypac (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• keep please point out the "spammyness" or anywhere in the article where you find advertising — Preceding unsigned comment added by Careyjamesbalboa (talk • contribs) 00:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Careyjamesbalboa (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

• Please read WP:PROMO, use of Wikipedia for promotional purposes is not allowed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable organization. This deletion discussion focuses on the notability of the subject, regardless of how well an article is written. Per the General notability guideline, subjects need to have significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This means that press releases and passing quotes do not establish notability. If there are independent sources that discuss this company (not its clients) in depth, then the subject is notable. Mere existence doesn't infer notability, nor does the opinion of any Wikipedia editors ("I like it" is as irrelevant as "I don't like it"). --Animalparty! (talk)
• Delete - although the article lists several notable musical artists as clients, I see nothing which indicates that this firm is the primary PR representative of those artists. In addition, the sources listed are heavily weighted with obvious reprints of press releases, presumably issued by the firm itself. I therefore believe that the company fails notability requirements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete: Sources are mentions-in-passing and regurgitation of WPR's own press releases, not in-depth, independent coverage that establishes notability per WP:GNG. Many of them are not about the company but about Kirt Webster personally. The COI nature of this is pretty clear, with the all "I know celebs" snapshots. This isn't an encyclopedia article, its basically a social media profile. WPR needs to avail itself of LinkedIn, not Wikipedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  00:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Let me note that the photos that were added were not uploaded by the article creator as part of the current effort, but were created by someone with a very detectable conflicting interest (not that that's illegit in image uploading itself) months to over a year ago. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

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