Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 October	23 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selena Zhao[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE. Did not qualify to the free skate at the World Junior Championships and has only appeared at one senior international event, finishing off the podium. A junior national title is not sufficient (must be gold on the senior level). Hergilei (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Academicoffee71 (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NSKATE and GNG, just not enough coverage to justify and article.18abruce (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Forsythe[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG. Hergilei (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, we can prove he exists, competed, went to school, but can't prove why he is notable.18abruce (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Academic Challenger (talk) 10:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carl and Willard station[edit]

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

Non-existent light rail station. It is not a current stop, nor is any information available to prove that it even was a former stop. (Contrast, for example, Taraval and 28th Avenue station, a recently discontinued stop on the same system with two well-sourced paragraphs.) This likely was a stop decades ago when trains on this system stopped at every cross street, but since it didn't last long enough into the modern era to have any available sources, it fails GNG. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Having lived a few blocks from that intersection I can attest that there's no stop/station there. The lede in the article is just false. Even the official route map doesn't indicat a stop.[1] There's no evidence this was an actual station beyond the possibility of a stop if it stopped at all corners as the nom suggested. --Oakshade (talk) 06:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if not Speedy under G3 as above. Nightfury 13:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-existent light rail station. The article has no sources and I could not find any either. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oakshade. South Nashua (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --do ncr am 00:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isidro Salusky[edit]

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

Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for medical doctors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACADEMIC: "The person holds or has held a... distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research." In this context, wouldn't that apply to "Salusky became a Distinguished Professor of pediatrics and Chief, Pediatric Nephrology at the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center"? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- "Salusky became a Distinguished Professor of pediatrics and Chief, Pediatric Nephrology at the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center" meets WP:PROF. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think so. This is a major teaching hospital, I believe, so that criterion # 5 of WP:NACADEMIC would seem to apply. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, the referenced claim that "he established the foundation for our understanding of bone and mineral metabolism in children with chronic kidney disease" would seem to meet #1. And then to top it off, he received a lifetime achievement award from the American Academy of Pediatrics, meeting criterion #2. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1 (highly cited publications including one with over 2800 cites on Google scholar), #C2 (a lifetime achievement award from a major society [2]), and #C5 (the distinguished professorship). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF and WP:ACADEMIC clearly. Life time major award, distinguished professor and editor of renowned medical journal. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck's Gun Shop & Range[edit]

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

Non-notable. Fbdave (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noteable enough for the Guardian^[1], New York Times^[2], The Washington Post^[3], and ABC7 Chicago^[4]

I could probably find more if I actually dig

^ Guarino, Mark (2014-09-12). "Chicago priest 'receives death threats' after gun control rally outside store". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2017-10-22.
^ Davey, Monica (2013). "Strict Gun Laws in Chicago Can't Stem Fatal Shots". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-10-22.
^ Thompson, Cheryl W. (2010-11-22). "The story of two guns that killed police officers". ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2017-10-22.
^ Holmes, Evelyn (2015-06-06). "Protesters take aim at 'bad apple' gun dealers at Chuck's Gun Shop in Riverdale". ABC7 Chicago. Retrieved 2017-10-22.

Victor Grigas (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC) Just dug - found a bunch more sources and added them to the article - Breitbart, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times. Victor Grigas (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:N. gidonb (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe it now meets the WP:GNG. Great work by User:Victorgrigas! Organized a bit myself. gidonb (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG thanks to WP:HEYMANN by User:Victorgrigas.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely meets GNG, plenty of reliable sources there. Plus I think the article explains why it's notable very well. Definitely more than a run-of-the-mill gun shop. South Nashua (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see anything in this article that is WP:NOTNEWS. Fbdave (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Notable. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequate references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Passes GNG and WP:NCORP -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jundo Cohen[edit]

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

All sources, both in the article and locatable during WP:BEFORE, appear to be WP:SELFPUB. Either generated by the article subject themselves or by followers or others on social media, etc. No indication of significant coverage in independent WP:RS, per WP:GNG. The most significant possible source seems to be this book but it is published by Cohen's Treeleaf Zendo group and is about Cohen's teacher. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no secondary sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:BASIC, as per source searching. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Reddy[edit]

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

Non-notable film producer. He co-owns the production house Jolly Hits which has produced one film. The Jolly Hits article was deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jolly Hits. Only passing mentions in all the sources. Last of all the page was created by a sock User:PrakashGollapalli007. FITINDIA 19:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable film producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't appear to meet the requirements to be a notable producer; being a distributor is not generally notable Spiderone 22:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2010 International Mathematical Olympiad[edit]

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

Non-notable stub. Wumbolo (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't see why this needs its own article, it can be on a list easily enough, list of International Mathematical Olympiad winners or something. Dysklyver 20:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: we have this list: List of International Mathematical Olympiad participants, and this list: List of International Mathematical Olympiads. Wumbolo (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well those lists need some work, but seem to cover the subject adequately enough. Dysklyver 21:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and for pre-existence of perfectly suitable lists given by User:Dysklyver. Insufficient online sources to suggest this stub would ever be expanded to demonstrate notability for just that year. See also International Mathematical Olympiad. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable event, this will lead to spate of dozens of stubs on every year's one and all will remain permastub as such as no reliable info about every single event. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Brain Laboratory[edit]

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

PROD removed with no valid explanation. Not enough references to meet the criteria for establishing notability. Existing reference is not intellectually independent as is largely based on PRIMARY sources, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The PROD was disruptive as it "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected". The topic is obviously notable -- see Nature, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please produce two (minimum required) references (intellectually independent) that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Your opinion that the topic is obviously notable is noted, but we need references. Posting a PROD is not disruptive especially in light of an article that has a -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The prod was removed with the edit summary "The Guardian say "combining expertise from 21 labs in Europe and the US, the International Brain Laboratory will attempt to answer one of the greatest mysteries of all time". Philafrenzy (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Exactly - no valid explanation. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient sources. WP:Too soon, if ever. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- WP:Too soon is an essay, not policy. And it's about actors and films and so irrelevant. Andrew D. (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Rationale for deletion as offered by the nom does not seem valid. eg, seems to be claiming that an article in the Guardian is not a secondary source. Claims that the PROD was removed without a valid explanation, but offers no explanation of why the explanation (repeated above by Philafrenzy) is invalid. Yes, the article is a stub and needs to be expanded with more sources. That's not enough of a reason to delete this article barely a month after it was created. Finally, is it acceptable for the nominator to include a bold "delete" at the start of the nomination? It tends to create the visual impression of an extra delete vote, because no other AfD nominator does that, so far as I've seen. -- Gpc62 (talk) 05:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the bolded delete, the nomination is sufficient. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I find sufficient reliable sources discussing this international project to demonstrate notability. Meets WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think The Guardian and Nature together provide splashy enough coverage in both mainstream media and the scientific literature to pass WP:GNG. And the nomination statement is deficient as all secondary sources are based on primary sources; that's what makes them secondary. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Not actually what was said or meant when referring to PRIMARY, but I can understand why my statement might be misinterpreted. I hoped my reference to CORPDEPTH ("quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources") and ORGIND ("other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people") would be enough without clipping the precise part of each. My bad. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both the IBL and the Simons Foundation and the Wellcome Trust released press releases on 19th September 2017 which coincides with the press articles. Clearly this shows that the article are based on information provided by the IBL and therefore fail WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You'll have to show us more evidence than that to demonstrate that your claim is anything more than speculation. It is competely normal for legitimate, properly reported articles to appear in venues such as The Guardian and Nature shortly after press releases went out. That's the very nature of how the industry often works. The timing, by itself, demonstrates nothing. -- Gpc62 (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well .... this announcement from Princeton University uses the exact same graphic as used in the Nature article. I'd say that pretty much shows that one is based on the other. Also, this PDF press release from the university of Geneva states WARNING: embargoed until 19th of September 2017, 00:00 GMT and indicates a press campaign around the launch. Finally, if this brand new organisation was truly notable, there should be other articles written that are not based on the announcement. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You still haven't demonstrated anything of relevance. Of course Nature re-used the image. That alone proves nothing about the origins of the text content. Of course the organization had a press campaign. Do you understand how many science-related news stories routinely involve an embargoed press release? You're pointing at things that are completely routine and claiming they are somehow conclusive evidence that a news item published in Nature is thereby so tainted it shouldn't count as a secondary source. If this is the best you have, it just proves you have no case. -- Gpc62 (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DMarket[edit]

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

Delete References fails the criteria for establishing notability and are either based on company announcements (fails as a PRIMARY source and/or WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:ORGIND) or are mentions-in-passing (fails WP:CORPDEPTH) or are based on quotations/interviews with no independent analysis or opinions (fails PRIMARY and WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:ORGIND). Probably WP:TOOSOON. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is highly notable and famous within the gaming industry, raised millions of dollars in hours. May not be notable as a political article but within the gaming industry, it is a revolutionary step. Easily passes WP:GNG, the person who is in the gaming may determine the notability, thanks! Vibrant.Wiki (talk) 08:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Salavat (talk) 08:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vibrant.Wiki, please familiarize yourself with deletion discussions. If you believe it is highly notable, it is up to you to prove that it is. It could've raised billions and billions, and it might be the most popular thing in the world, but without sources, there's no valid reason to have an article on the subject. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A quick search on the custom WP:VG/RS Google search engine brings up very little. It is mentioned once, in a piece by The New York Times, but that's the best I could find. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I could not find any reliable sources to prove notability. ZettaComposer (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources that suggests the group passes corporate notability standards. DrStrauss talk 11:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One day in spring[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Only sourcing I can find is AllMusic etc which has no editorial oversight. DrStrauss talk 22:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Someone needs to have a talk with the article creator. They have made quite a few articles on Banduri's work that obviously fail WP:GNG.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on the article creator's talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 18:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One day in spring (song) has been closed as delete. DrStrauss talk 17:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Currently fails the WP:GNG, created by an editor with seemingly no conception of the GNG, no sourcing has been found in the last week or so, and virtually no content is present at the article right now anyways. Usually I'd advocated for a redirect, but the respective artist could basically be described in the same manner as the album, so I'm not sure there'd be a point, it seems likely for deletion too. Sergecross73 msg me 18:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly sourced. Not enough evidence that this has been a notable or significant album. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, I blocked the user as a vandalism-only account, and this was their last remaining hoax--Ymblanter (talk) 05:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sonam kanotra[edit]

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

All the coverage I can find or that is cited is not primarily about her. Passing mentions only or inferred from Patidar reservation agitation. DrStrauss talk 22:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Had a quick search on Google, little on her. There is little independent RS in the article about her, there are a number of references on this article, but they refer to other people (Mainly Reshma Patel), she doesn't seem to be mentioned in them. Odd. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Devil Doll (Slovenian band). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sacrilegium[edit]

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

An unsourced article written on an album that fails our guidelines for albums. The work failed to place on a major music chart and was not released on a notable label. After a WP:BEFORE search I came to the conclusion there was a lack of the secondary sources required to pass WP:GNG. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Devil Doll (Slovenian band). A few pieces of coverage found, but not enough to justify a separate article on the album. --Michig (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moxie 88[edit]

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

Delete No indications of notability. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding coverage to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. gongshow talk 08:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG or WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A24 (company)[edit]

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

Delete References are not intellectually independent and/or relating to their productions and not to the company itself. Notability is not inherited. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Are you sure the refs aren't independent? Variety? The Hollywood Reporter? The LA Times? etc, etc. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep: An article about one of the most prolific distributors and productions studios that has won a number of Oscars, backed by verifiable resources, is up for deletion... Let that sink in. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 07:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And I disagree with the nominator's claim. Pretty much all references 1-14 are from independent sources and are about the company itself (its ethos, its plans, its management) rather than the films it produces. Smurrayinchester 08:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. A highly prominent film company, heavily covered in reliable sources. First page of a basic Google search includes "How A24 is Disrupting Hollywood" (GQ); "Is A24, the Indie Upstart with a Fresh Best-Picture Win, the Next Miramax?" (Vanity Fair); "Get to Know A24, the Film Company Behind Spring Breakers and Moonlight" (The Wall Street Journal). --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep as a highly notable company. There is an overwhelming amount of coverage about it. HighKing, how can you defend this? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see by a number of questions posted that there is some confusion over why this article was nominated. There shouldn't be. If it is a notable topic (and in truth I'm starting to see that it must be) then I'm delighted to be able to point out the crap referencing so that the article can be made even better. In response to Lugnuts, just to be clear - while the sources may be independent (in that they are not linked with the company they're discussing), the reference must also be *intellectually* independent. That is, it must not rely extensively on company-produced material or announcements - which includes interviews and quotations (and there's always exceptions). These sources are considered PRIMARY sources. There is a lot of confusion (and I see it all the time at AfD) in relation to an "independent source" and an "intellectually independent reference" that meets the criteria for establishing notability. DarthBotto has posted an opinion which doesn't really help any position in this AfD. Smurrayinchester says "pretty much all references 1-14 are from independent sources" but seems confused over the difference between an independent source and an intellectually independent reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. Without exception, all of the references 1-14 are either company announcements, business-as-usual announcements such as hiring/firing, articles discussing their marketing campaigns but nothing in-depth in relation to the company itself (the subject of this article), articles based on interviews and articles in relation to movie rights. Not to mention that the remaining references 15-63 are referencing the movies. Arxiloxos lists the fastcompany reference and this is good and meets the criteria - it is intellectually independent and in-depth. But both the GQ reference and the latimes article rely on interviews with Sofia Coppola (a business partner) and/or "the company's friends, collaborators and employees" and/or Katz and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND as they are not independent from the topic, not intellectually independent, and in some case PRIMARY sources. The WSJ article is behind a firewall and I am unable to verify if it meets the criteria for establishing notability, but if someone else comes along and can verify it, I'm happy to withdraw the nomination. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're wanting reference cleanup, that's one thing. But, flippantly nominating pages for deletion without having knowledge about the notability is not only disruptive, but wastes everyone's time. It's your responsibility to have a grasp on the notability of a subject, whether it's this one or the dozens of other pages you've nominated over the past 24 hours. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 19:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My comment that the article has "crap referencing" is still true. Doesn't mean that I'm looking for article cleanup - that's your incorrect assumption. That's twice now you've shown an inability to address what I've actually written. Try posting something constructive. Perhaps find a reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability? Just a suggestion.... -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DarthBotto is right. You need to exercise due diligence per WP:BEFORE before nominating. You're the odd editor out because everyone else knows that A24 is notable. The fact that multiple independent sources across the board even mention A24 is a big green flag to dig deeper and find out which ones have more details about the company. Like WP:GNG says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." But if you're dismissing something like the Los Angeles Times article as not sufficient for notability, then I don't know what to tell you. A good way to find sources is to do a domain search, e.g. a24 site:economist.com. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My own searching only found articles that fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. You might accuse me of applying a strict definition on sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability, fair enough, but ad hominen passive aggressive arguments such as WP:BEFORE or condescendingly pointing out how to perform a site search on Google are counter-productive. To date, I've provided cogent explanations on all the sources provided. You are entitled to disagree on the LA Times article if you have a different interpretation or application of policy/guidelines but for me and my interpretation, that article clearly fails since it relies exclusively on sources connected with the company. If you want to slam dunk this AfD, simply produce one more reference rather than bashing the nominator. Or not .. whatever amuses you. I'll continue to monitor this AfD to see if another source is produced. Until that time, I haven't had my WP:HEY moment and all I can see are publicity-generating advertorial references that continue to use PRIMARY sources, etc. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A24 should be kept because it did win several awards including Oscars. It won Best Actress for Brie Larson for Room, Best Visual Effects for Ex Machina, and Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor (Mahershala Ali), and Best Adapted Screenplay for Moonlight. Evil Idiot 11:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blessing Abeng[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are single line mentions, press releases, or do not mention article subject. WP:N and WP:ADVERT apply. reddogsix (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article of a non-notable subject. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does sound very promotional, with only small claims of importance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject of article lacks coverage in reliable press as per WP:GNG and innate in the article are features simillar to WP:!HERE as article appears promotional in nature and/or as marketing strategy to further sell the image of the subject.Celestina007 (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overt promotional content, which bunch of spam links, this woman is clearly non notable, no significant mention in WP:RS. Ammarpad (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Tomassen[edit]

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

Concern was fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG having never played in a fully professional league. PROD was removed by the article creator under the reasoning that the Conference National is a fully professional league, however there is clear consensus that it is not and it is not listed as a fully professional league. Kosack (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kosack (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kosack (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although Wrexham are a fully pro team, he only played in the Conference which is classed as non-league, which fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. The Conference/National League is not a fully-professional league. Number 5 7 08:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the consensus is against the rationale of the creator (who also deprodded it for same faulty rationale). News Search also yields near to nothing about him directly–Ammarpad (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katey Red[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a musician with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC -- the only real claim here is that she was one of the first LGBT musicians in a subgenre that's so stuffed to overflowing with LGBT musicians that being a straight musician in that genre would be the more unusual distinction. And beyond that, all that's been stated about her is that she released an album and met the genre's biggest star, the end. And for sourcing, what we have is her Last.fm profile -- not a notability-conferring source -- and a Q&A interview in which she talks about that other star rather than herself, and thus isn't the subject of the source at all. None of this, neither the content nor the sourcing, is enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. And what did your WP:BEFORE searches find? --Michig (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that was both reliable and verified anything that would pass an NMUSIC criterion. You're hereby invited to stop talking to me like I'm an idiot who doesn't know what I'm doing when it comes to assessing notability. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I think you don't know what you're doing, more that you don't care what you're doing. --Michig (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About which you're also wrong; I care too much what I'm doing for my own good sometimes, in fact. I take it very seriously as an article of faith that even if a topic is notable in principle, there's no value in starting an article that's written and sourced this badly — an article about any topic, notable or otherwise, should never exist until somebody's willing to put at least enough work into it to make it worth existing. Boilerplate articles which just say that the topic exists, but leave the actual demonstration of notability for other people to maybe add later, are not preferable to redlinks, and starting over from scratch with a better written and better sourced article is not a burden. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hear, hear...reddogsix (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just a quick search of Google found articles from The New York Times ([3]), Vanity Fair ([4]), significant coverage in Matt Miller's Bounce: Rap Music and Local Identity in New Orleans, and further coverage from The Guardian ("The pioneering sissy rapper is Katey Red"), VICE ([5]), Jordan Flaherty's book Floodlines: Community and Resistance from Katrina to the Jena Six: "In fact, the sissy bounce scene that was birthed a decade ago by gay rapper Katey Red with her 1999 album Melpomene Block Party has rejuvenated the bounce form", Neil Strauss's book Everyone Loves You When You're Dead, Harry Thomas's book Sissy!: The Effeminate Paradox in Postwar US Literature and Culture, and the book Voicing Girlhood in Popular Music: Performance, Authority, Authenticity. --Michig (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rab V (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided above. Article clearly needs work but AFD is meant for articles that can't be fixed through normal editing. Rab V (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of sources are available to establish notability, this article requires completion, not deletion. Robman94 (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Katey Red is universally regarded as a pioneer and major figure in the bounce genre, as demonstrated in Michig's sources and plenty of others that can be found in the usual searches. (200+ hits at nola.com alone; in 2010 Vanity Fair called her "originator of the form, and reigning queen of the scene"[6].) I note that a prior attempt at a bio was speedy-deleted (A7) in 2011 [7], so here we are 6 years later with no article. So this brand new attempt should be improved, not deleted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Catholic (term). Well, seems like the consensus is that this is not a suitable article and if anything its creation should be discussed before actually creating it. I see no clear consensus between "delete" and "redirect to Catholic (term)" seeing as it seems like the arguments against the redirect can be reasonably addressed by indefinite full protection. Since redirecting is preferred to deletion (per WP:ATD-R), thus redirect and fully protect forever. I'll punt any fine tuning of the redirect beyond this to WP:RFD which is better equipped to handle "redirect or no page?" questions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amending this close to delete and redirect per request on my talk page; it doesn't seem like there is any desire or reason to keep the page history and some concern that it will be misused. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the Catholic Church[edit]

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

I am pulling this out of the New Articles queue for community input as to whether it should or should not exist as a freestanding article. I believe this to be a POV fork of Catholic Church, which already includes the core content from the "Terminology" section. An edit note by the article creator states: "Encyclopedic relevance for a forked article Name of the Catholic Church in equivalence with that of Name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and other arguably less prominent naming controverises listed in Category:Naming controversies." I believe the lead section, as written, illustrates the POV intent of the piece: "...the name has sometimes been a subject of dispute due to its perceived unjust pretentions of exclusivity by proponents of other Christian denominations, most notably by Protestants during the 17th-19th centuries. Although these objections have been refuted on respective arguments of the right of self-designation, some public authorities, encyclopedias, media outlets and individuals have insisted on maintaining a criticial stance as implied to this retention until this day." Carrite (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect -- I do not think it contains anything substantial that is not in Catholic (term). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- Catholic Church#Name I'd have thought, but could be Catholic (term). Contains very little that isn't in Catholic Church#Name, and what is there is POV. TSP (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No content here worth saving. Redirects are too-easily hijacked. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only differences it has with other articles is where it is obviously factually challenged. For such a short piece, it has a lot of "differences with other articles". Anmccaff (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People easily confuse the meaning of the word "catholic" with the name of this church. The issues involving "Roman" are also of general interest. Unscintillating (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt no, this is part of the on-going Catholic-naming dispute (probably the longest naming dispute in existence on en.wiki, lasting well over a decade) and is a POV-fork from the main Catholic Church article. The main contributor to this article is one of the leading main proponents of removing the Roman disambiguator from Wikipedia, and if this article were to continue to exist, I'm confident it would be only as a POV-fork. Why salt? There actually *might* be a time when this is warranted if consensus develops to split bits and pieces from the main article and other articles into one article, but that would require explicit consensus and is best judged by an uninvolved admin. This is similar to why Catholic Church is move protected, and would mirror that.
Why no redirect: this is a highly implausible search term and the history contains very dubious claims such as the first two sentences which state The name of the Catholic Church is typically derived from Catechism of the Catholic Church, promulgated for the Catholic Church by Pope John Paul II in 1992. Attributed constitutional bearing, it sums up the teachings of the church., where I can see two claims that have no sourcing and I would argue very strongly are just plain false. If it is redirected, which I don't think would be helpful to the reader, the article should be deleted first and the redirect full protected for the reasons I gave in support of salting above: explicit consensus is needed to create this article. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beryl Wajsman[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a community weekly newspaper editor, referenced exclusively to the mastheads of the newspapers he edits (i.e. primary and non-independent sources that cannot support his notability) and not to any evidence of reliable source coverage about him. And on both Google and ProQuest, I get a lot of glancing namechecks of his existence, but the only coverage about him I can find exists in two specific contexts: his candidacy in a forthcoming mayoral election, which is not a notability criterion, and withdrawn decade-old criminal allegations of the type that would violate WP:PERP if we tried to make them the crux of his eligibility for an article (which they would have to be, because nothing else here is properly sourceable.) Basically, nothing here is a valid notability claim in the absence of valid sourcing for it. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly sourced article with a promotional tone. Not enough evidence in my view to indicate significant notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Star of Baghdad[edit]

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

None of the sources provided actually discuss the song so I am lost: where did the writer get the information for the "Music Backgourd"? I could not find any reliable sources reviewing or analyzing the song in-depth. It fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG to me. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NSONG, and by the looks of it, all the other articles related to Bandari (AVC) fail notability, including the article for the group itself – they're all completely unreferenced. Richard3120 (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zarab Khan[edit]

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

This biography lists no sources. The subject is apparently a person from the 11th century, but that is never stated in this article. The article states that the subject was a "General of army" but doesn't state which country's army he fought for, and then says that the subject "signed a treaty with the King of Kashmir" (which king?) "and married his daughter" (which daughter?). I tried to find sources on my own, but the best sources I could find were blogs and Facebook pages. The subject might be a notable person, but the content here is not a proper biography. If the article is turned into a proper biography, I may change my mind. Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:V. The only sources I could find were blogs, English or Arabic. Without sources we can't keep it. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V .Clearly lacks sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sherrie Miday[edit]

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

Non-notable politician lacking in-depth, non-trivial sources. CSD was declined based on, "subject won an election." Editor that removed CSD failed to follow WP:POLITICIAN, "Just being an elected local official...does not guarantee notability". reddogsix (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete If there's something regarding being the uniqueness of Egyptian decent and a judge in that area, maybe that could be notable. Otherwise, I agree completely with the nom. South Nashua (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Editor that removed CSD failed to follow WP:POLITICIAN" .... no, because WP:POLITICIAN is not directly relevant to CSD A7. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. County court judges do not get an automatic notability freebie just for existing, and being the first person of any particular ethnicity to hold the role does not automatically make her special in the absence of significantly nationalized reliable source coverage about the historic importance of that distinction. That said, I also agree with Ritchie that CSD was not relevant here — to be non-speediable, all an article has to do is make any notability claim at all. It doesn't actually have to be one that would survive an AFD — any notability claim at all, even one that clearly fails our actual notability standards, still precludes speedy on those grounds and forces prod or AFD instead. CSD A7 is for articles on the order of "John Smith lives at 128 Elm Street, the end" or "Jane Mitchell is the best girlfriend in the world, the end", not articles like this. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and above but it's also as Ritchie says it. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 16:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Camacho[edit]

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

Promotional article of no clear notability. Does not meet WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo Imamura).PRehse (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing in the article that makes a real case for notability. There's a lack of significant independent coverage and nothing to show he meets any of the notability criteria for martial artists. The only notability claim appears to be his martial arts rank, but that has never been considered sufficient to show notability. Claims like his "work reached a different level since he became the teacher of teachers" are unsupported puffery. Being a student of Leo Imamura, whose article was recently deleted, is also is not a reason to claim notability. Papaursa (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough evidence from sources to indicate significant notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Solar Energy Industries Association[edit]

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

No evidence of notability (all sources are the organisation itself or its parent organisation). Also created by an SPA who removed the prod from the article. Number 5 7 12:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Delete. Local industry advocacy group. I see side mentions here and there, but no substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources, offered or to be found. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 07:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG; local and trivial in nature. Kierzek (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- $60K a year is not much of an association. Rhadow (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lixil Group. Black Kite (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tostem[edit]

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

This company fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NCORP. There is no coverage by third party reliable sources. For these reasons, I think that the article should be deleted. Please note that previously, this page was a redirect to Tostem Station, and I think that it could be re-created after deletion. Kostas20142 (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lixil Group; a valid search term as per WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A question to the nominator: when you say that there is no coverage by reliable third-party sources, I assume you checked potential sources in Japanese as well? If so, I agree with North America that "Lixil Group" is a better redirect target. If not, then someone needs to check Japanese sources before this is deleted (I do not speak Japanese, so unfortunately cannot help).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 23, 2017; 14:17 (UTC)
Redirect to Lixil Group as WP:ATD; no need for a separate article. No indications of notability or significance, and no sources to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
dab Lots of sources in WP:BEFORE such as sixth snippet on Google books which states, "The top five Japanese residential window companies in 1998 were Tostem Corporation (34.3% market share)..." Given that there are no secondary sources in the current article, the topic can be covered at Lixil Group for now. Mentioning a train station at the top of Lixil Group can be avoided by making this a dab page. Unscintillating (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 11:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brahmastra (2019 film)[edit]

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

Does not meet the notability guidelines for films, specifically WP:NFF, which states "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. " The article currently states principal photography is not scheduled to begin until February. It is too soon for an article about this film. My search could not find sources about it other than announcements of production. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom Academicoffee71 (talk) 03:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its too soon to have an article if the principle photography hasnt begun. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF and the above - too soon to warrant an article. gongshow talk 08:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History and Origin Of Sarrara Abbasi[edit]

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

Seems to be purely original research. Ymblanter (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me why this article is being considered for deletion ? How does it violates community standards? -Ahsanwqr (talk)
- For one thing, no sources are provided other than one other Wikipedia article -- and Wikipedia is itself not considered a reliable source. Also, even though this is supposed to be an article about history, there are very few mentions of years or even centuries, so that it is unclear when the events described took place. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is about history that's right , this article is written by the person who observed all that with his eyes and all life experience and wrote everything on a paper. So how there is meant to be a source because there is no article other than this on entire Internet! As well everyone is welcomed to edit this article so that there could be more improvements. Ahsanwqr (talk)
  Unfortunately it does not work. We have policies, WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR, which essentially say that Wikipedia can only have articles on subjects for which we have previously published material (and not even every publication qualifies). The way to proceed would be to publish an account of the person, wait until it gets noticed and generates some responses, and, after carefully studying the policies I just cited, to start a Wikipedia article.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Seeing the current position of this article what must be done in this to make it qualified? This article means alot. Please help me out.Ahsanwqr (talk)
  - I would recommend adding some citations to the article that would associate the facts in the article with specific reliable sources, such as books, which would confirm that the statements in the article are true. (And while you are at it, please indicate in what years or at least what centuries the events described in the article took place.) I can't guarantee that the article will be kept if you make those improvements, but its chances will improve if you do. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR. The subject isn't notable and the original author admits this is OR. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sathish Sastry[edit]

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

Fails any biographical notability criterion. Article sourced to IMDB and obvious autobiography. Obliged to go through full AfD due to dePROD. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- fails WP:BIO. FITINDIA 19:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- nn as "entrepreneur, a producer and a distributor"; promotionalism only. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete WP:G3. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 18:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arkharian language[edit]

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

This is an unreferenced non-existent topic Taivo (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a Google search for this topic throws up very few websites other than those which are in Wikipedia. Vorbee (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"...spoken by 5 persons in Turkey." This is surely a hoax and should be tagged as such, I believe. Speedy delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Faithfully - Phillip Leo[edit]

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

This is one of a set of promotional pages by WP:SPA Pep67, the others being Philip Ernest Pottinger (born 1967) and Draft:Big Lion Productions. PROD removed by IP, and maintenance tags removed by Pep67, without explanation and without addressing the issue of independent reliable sources. It cites no sources, and searches of the usual types found no indication that it meets WP:NALBUM. Worldbruce (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage found. --Michig (talk) 10:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Queensland Reds. Consensus is obviously to not keep the article. As it is a plausible search term I think it's useful to maintain as a redirect, and as a bonus the content remains in the history just in case anyone wants to merge any of what was there. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Queensland Reds season[edit]

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

This article contains no information that is not already available in 2017 Super Rugby season or Queensland Reds. It's also missing a lead section, citations and one column (i.e. one half of the article) is dedicated to previous seasons, which is off-topic. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Queensland Reds, if any information isn't there already, as nom has said, this information should be included in the main article on the team. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment needing improvement is not a reason to nominate for deletion (It's also missing a lead section, citations and one column (i.e. one half of the article) is dedicated to previous seasons, which is off-topic. ). Mjroots (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are two previous seasons as per: Category:Queensland Reds seasons. Shall we either suggest these too are work in progress or are excessive and can be covered in other articles? Ajf773 (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ajf773:, the 2008 Queensland Reds season article also doesn't contain any information not available in 2008 Super 14 season, so I would support adding that one as well. The 2009 Queensland Reds season article should be retained in my opinion, since it contains content such as squad information, player changes and scorers. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Depends As is delete. Keep the other two articles. If this article can be brought to the same level as the other two then keep, a non trivial amount of work is required by an "expert" to do so. Otherwise it is a waste of reading time and should be deleted - TNT. Aoziwe (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No sourced content so there is nothing worth merging. I'd probably say delete with no prejudice against recreation should someone actually make an attempt to create a halfway decent article. Jenks24 (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Rosfeld[edit]

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

Works of David Rosfeld don't seem to be notable - no big festivals, awards or achievements. Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment some articles but not from substantive RS.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact his one film mentioned in the article is called "3 People I've never heard of" seems to emcapsulate him, no one has ever heard of him, except maybe a few people super deep in experimental film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears insufficiently notable at this time. Coverage found is minimal. --Michig (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Young Pappy[edit]

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

Still fails at WP:NOTABILITY and WP:MUSICBIO. No effort into making a page about a unsigned artist with little popularity, whatsoever. BJPlaya10 (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Keep has significant coverage in reliable sources, there are plenty in Google news search shown above (it isn't necessary to reproduce them) the Vice article here is significant coverage about his whole life not just his shooting and states that he was famous before he was killed with over a million and half downloads on soundcloud so WP:BIO1E does not apply.Another source about his life here. Previous discussions have hinted at sockpuppetry so hopefully that wont happen here. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only significant coverage is due to his death, so WP:BIO1E is pretty spot on. Even if those sources go more in-depth into his life, they were still done primarily to cover the single event. There is only in-depth coverage from 2 independent sources, both are primarily about his shooting. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment google news shows plenty of coverage, more than enough for WP:GNG and the Vice and DNA articles are much more than routine reporting Atlantic306 (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Google news shows plenty of coverage": except Wikipedia is not news and news reports are treated as primary sources. He is known for one event that was covered briefly in late May but had no long-term impact. He certainly does not pass the general notability guideline when he falls under what Wikipedia is not; hence there are no legitimate claims supporting notability or reason to keep this article in the encyclopedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fail WP:BIO, and WP:GNG . notability not found Samat lib (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Vice article and DNA article are not news reporting and are secondary sources based on his musical career and likely would not have been published if he was only known for his shooting so WP:GNG is passed WP:NOTNEWS refers to trivial events which this is not. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since when do we define newspapers and magazines as primary sources. They are and always have been secondary sources. They are the type of WP:RS that we seek. You can't just delete something by suddenly changing the rules.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TonyTheTiger this page is very enlightening on the issue: "Most reliable sources in academia, however, name typical contemporary newspaper stories as primary sources". There are more details there. Fortunately, I am actually the one following the rules, as radical as that may sound to you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Academia considers newspaper articles less than fifty years old as primary sources so that definition of a primary source does not apply to Wikipedia Atlantic306 (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nitpicking about whether newsmedia are primary or secondary sources has little impact on whether they are WP:RS. See Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources. As always the determination of source reliability is dependent upon the fact-source pair. For most facts that they support, newsmedia are RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 10:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not enough coverage of him as a musician to show notability as such. The coverage of his death does not rise above news coverage enough to justify having an article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am surprised so much argument has occurred on this article. It seems quite clearly non-notable to me. ~~Incredibly stupid~~ comments about whether news is reliable based on ~~crap like~~: "Academia considers newspaper articles less than fifty years old as primary sources" seems irrelevant, what is relevant is that this is a WP:BIO1E failure, an argument to which no clear rebuttal has been found. Dysklyver 15:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 12:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- nn as a musician and WP:BIO1E situation. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TUC (cracker)[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG as a non-notable brand Dysklyver 21:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Cracker (food). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - somewhat well-known (and delicious), but not so much so for an encyclopedic article. Bearian (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 09:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep TUC is a well-known brand in the UK with widespread availability; while it might not receive reams of coverage, I don't think it's significantly less notable than the many other branded crackers we also have articles on. The article could be improved though by the addition of nutritional details, history, etc. Eloquai (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - most the crackers on that list aren't notable either, but we can't do everything at once :( Dysklyver 13:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note for the avoidance of doubt: I'm not saying that we should keep this article just because there are other pages on similar topics. I think that, like TUC, many of those other crackers are worthy of articles in their own right given their widespread consumption and brand recognition. Eloquai (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a fairly well-known brand of cracker biscuit. Vorbee (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Long-established and widely known brand across Europe. Distinctive as a type and without other close competitors. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well known does not equal notable, the General Notability Guideline requires the existence of sufficient reliable independent sources to prove the subject is notable. Arguments to assert the subjective importance of an article are to be avoided, for more information read the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Dysklyver 19:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Can I please ask, to better understand your position, what would you consider to be a good demonstration of notability for branded snacks/biscuits/foods? Would you also support the deletion of articles like Twix, Reese's Pieces, Kit Kat, Maryland Cookies, etc? Please note, I'm not trying to sneak in an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but rather trying to work out how we might go about establishing notability in this area given that we don't have a site-wide policy on notability for food. Eloquai (talk)
The relevant guideline in the absence of a specific guideline is WP:GNG, which is applicable to this article. I have outlined what I would do with each article you mentioned if I had free choice (which I don't), if they were nominated (which I am not planning to at this time).

Twix - merge to Mars, Incorporated.

Reese's Pieces - merge to List of products manufactured by The Hershey Company.

Kit Kat - keep, this is an example of exactly what I want to see, a well written, well referenced article, with plenty of useful information.

Maryland Cookies - merge to Burton's Biscuit Company.

It is hard to apply an absolute rule to brands, in some cases WP:CORPDEPTH is also applicable. Dysklyver 20:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be randomly inconsistent, and have given no guiding principle behind your decisions here. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guiding principle = WP:GNG. Dysklyver 22:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you see Twix and Kit Kat as having different conclusions, then you're doing it wrong (whatever "it" is). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you printed out both articles and compared them you might get an idea. Also the KitKat is more culturally significant than the twix, and this shows, for example the android kitkat operating system, the trademark rows over the shape, the longer established timeframe. all these factors mean more sources are available. Dysklyver 00:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So one is "more notable", because its article is better? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's more nuanced than that, one is more notable because its article can be better because there are more sources, technically if the sources to improve the article were identified, it does not matter if the article is low quality, because it can be better. In the specific case of KitKat, the article has been improved already, this is the best policy for not having an article deleted. But it is not essential, although arguing sources not added to the article is sometimes more difficult. You should note the KitKat article has 46 sources, including coverage by the BBC, Telegraph, Guardian, New York Times and ofter national publications. Compare that to this TUC Cracker article with two local sources in the article, no additional sources identified at AfD, and a WP:BEFORE that shows nowhere near the depth of coverage KitKat has.Dysklyver 08:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sometimes, it is best to pause and ask if we are serving our readers well by deleting articles on well–known products. Lepricavark (talk) 04:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consumer Goods Europe. Corporate Intelligence on Retailing. 2004. In early 1999, Griesson and General Biscuits Deutschland formed a joint venture, with Griesson owning 60% and Danone 40%...Headquarters are now in Polch...The company's main brand names nowadays are Prinzenrolle..., Leicht & Cross..., and TUC and Ritz (crackers). TUC are...available...since May 2000, as reduced fat...
Comment As shown by the above WP:BEFORE source from Google books snippet 8, WP:BEFORE D1 results were not reported in the nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the lede of WP:N and evidence in the article and available from WP:BEFORE, topic is worthy of notice. Unscintillating (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bd2412 T 16:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

European Association for Neuro-Linguistic Psychotherapy[edit]

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

No sources. A basic search returns nothing but the website and facebook page. Has any reliable source said anything about this organization? MrBill3 (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion as yet on deletion, must I must point out that Neuro-Linguistic Psychotherapy seems to be the new name used for the pseudoscience of Neuro-linguistic programming, presumably because the old name has now become so discredited, so we have to be careful to look for genuinely reliable sources from outside the circle of believers, per WP:FRINGE. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: that is an organization and exists. It has that has members. You cannot delete it - IT EXISTS whatever someone like it or not. I added one from Romania and I will encourage others to list themselves.

You say that there is no reliable source to say about EANLPt but you miss the fact that European Association for Psychotherapy has a direct link in Wikipedia and now I added the link to the page you can see the status of European Wide Accrediting Association http://www.europsyche.org/ewao

NLPt has a full methodology of training of 3200 hours of training, supervision and and scientific research behind. NLPt is not a new name for NLP: it incorporate what is valid and evidence based in NLP, falsely discredited as pseudoscience. There is research - and a meta-analysis shows that clearly. Peer-reviewed journals psychiatry journals are not believers you mentioned. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26609647 and http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14733140903225240 are simply independent journals and they do not belong to EANLPt. And I guess they are quite competent to judge before publishing that the content is scientific.

I hope we can set down the alert for deletion. Drcz (talk) 11:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:EXISTS. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, agree. I have added the links on the research is not the case that is simply existence: it is hard and scientific work, properly referenced. EANLPt is the only organization that represent NLPt based on a meta curricula that is the basis of all Neuro-Linguistic Psychotherapist accreditation in the countries where psychotherapy is regulated: here are a few: Italia http://www.pnlt.it/index.php/pnl-scuola-di-specializzazione-quadriennale-in-psicotrapia-pnlt/ Austria https://www.bmgf.gv.at/cms/home/attachments/9/9/8/CH1207/CMS1421843861834/ects-bewertung_psychotherapeutische_propaedeutika.xls Romania - Psihoterapia Neuro Lingvistica https://www.psihoterapie.ro/Certificari-si-registre/Modalitati-psihoterapeutice and I can search for more. The main issue is that most of the countries are not in the English :( Drcz (talk) 12:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First lets be clear that this is about the particular organization that the article is about and not get off topic on the discussion of NLPt.

Of the references provided I only see one that has anything to do with this organization. It of some significance that the European Association of Psychotherapy lists this organization as an accrediting organization. That alone does not establish notability for this organization. Please take a look at WP:ORG and see what is required to be notable for an article on WP. In order to meet notability there need to be some reliable sources that consider this organization important enough to have published something about it. To keep this article a number of sources that discuss this organization are the minimum.

Sources do not have to be in English.MrBill3 (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely that sources do not have to be in English, but still maintain that this needs mainstream sources rather than just from those who believe in NLP/NLPt. The distinction might not be important here, because I don't think that we even have sources from the true believers, but we still need to be careful about what sources we accept. Sources about national members of this organisation are certainly not sufficient. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have been unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources about this association. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 11:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't seem to find non-primary sources about it, at least in English. The only article which links to this one is European Association for Psychotherapy. —Paleo Neonate – 02:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't find secondary coverage either on this. These organizations usually have mostly primary coverage, but there should be at least something out there to establish WP:ORG. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Probably needs attention by Chinese-speaking editors. Sandstein 07:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nantong Xiting Cracker[edit]

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

everything here appears to be legendary, and part of the promotion of the company now making the cracker--whose name is not mentioned. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Xiting is a small part of Nantong: [8]. The native term for the crisp seems to be either 南通脆饼 or 西亭脆饼. The first one is machine-translated to Nantong crisp and the second to Xiting cracker. They look very similar, so it's hard to understand whether they are the same thing or not. Adding to confusion is the fact that our article pretty much calls it by both names. The first term brought results from as far back as 2007: [9], [10], [11], [12] and [13]. Searching for Nantong Xiting also brought up an English article from Xinhua: [14]. The cracker seems to exist as a cultural thing in the region and multiple companies seem to produce them: [15]. But I don't know what the coverage requirements for crispbread Wikipedia articles are. Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it is nndeed produced by multiple companies, all it needs is some rewriting to indicate this and decrease the apparent promotionalism . DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cut out the company mention entirely. And to begin with I think it was simply poor English. I don't think they were specifically referring to a single company. Chinese usually doesn't "have" plural. They have an extra symbol for plural but it's rarely used. Because of that when they write in English implied plural sometimes become singular. This means company might've supposed to have been companies. The sentence also focused more on the extra flavors. But looking at the sales listings on their Amazon-like sites, I don't think I even saw any extra flavors.

I also edited the grammar and removed some section headings. I also added the few sources. Mr. Magoo (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Here's the problem: articles which are entirely based on foreign sources sometimes are workable for things with proper names, but in this case, from what I can see, we're just making up a name for something. If it becomes well-known enough to English speakers that it gets an English name, then OK, but at the moment the name of the thing is an insurmountable mountain of WP:OR. Mangoe (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you're talking about a WP:NAME issue, which really isn't a rationale for deletion. To add, if a subject is notable in another language it is notable for all language editions of Wikipedia (see also WP:NONENG). If there is no common English name then just revert to the pinyin transcription. _dk (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. There needs to be more proof that there even is a thing than that someone can transliterate a phrase. Mangoe (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of Chinese speakers editing on English Wikipedia if you need verification. _dk (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How are Chinese speakers relevant to reference to the transliterated name? It's not our job to assign English names to Chinese things. Mangoe (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument boils down to "We don't have an English name on this so we should not have an article", which I hope you can see is not a very effective argument to make. _dk (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, my argument is that "since there is no English word for this, it's not our place to be making one up for it, and therefore we shouldn't have an article on it." If you want to argue that we should be making a name up for it, or that we aren't making up a name for it, well, OK (though I disagree on both points), but otherwise, you're simply making a WP:ILIKEIT response. Mangoe (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have a guideline dealing with this specific issue at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese), which I like very much indeed. _dk (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, we don't. The guideline you cite is entirely concerned with proper names. Without regard to my opinion on how well we create English versions of those names, it's not the same thing as this. Mangoe (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 11:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be notable. Possibly rename as it appears to be a type of regional sesame seed snack along the lines of Huangqiao Sesame Cake and Changzhou Sesame Cake e.g. 1--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:G12, copyright violation. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Borna Kazerani[edit]

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

This person doesn't pass WP:GNG, since there isn't sufficient coverage from independent, reliable sources, or WP:NBIO. I therefore believe that this article should be deleted. Kostas20142 (talk) 10:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kostas20142 (talk) 10:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kostas20142 (talk) 10:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Direct copy from https://www.linkedin.com/in/borna-kazerani-7b5a8134 in addition to the above points it is an unsourced BLP.PRehse (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G12 - We do not send articles copy/pasted from online to AfD. GMG ^talk 11:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G12, this is the wrong venue, no need to discuss it further. Dysklyver 12:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald B. Dodd[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF. CapitalSasha ~ talk 06:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The article still a poor one and needs some wikifying, but the title "professor emeritus" is (I think) even in America not given to every retired university lecturer. He appears to be an important historian of his own state, and is likely also to have a significant output of articles, not cited here. It needs improvement, not deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, that term generally is available to all retired professors. See [16] for a list of all emeriti at Auburn University. WP:PROF has specific criteria for inclusion of academics and this individual appears to meet none of them. CapitalSasha ~ talk 17:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is available to retired professors in good standing, which is most but not all of them. But I agree, it does not indicate any special honor or sign of notability. I have no opinion yet on the actual case at hand. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:AUTHOR. For example, Historical statistics of the states of the United States : two centuries of the census, 1790-1990 by Don Dodd was published in 10 editions 1993 in English and is held by 999 WorldCat member libraries worldwide (Worldcat Identities). Wings of denial : the Alabama Air National Guard's covert role at the Bay of Pigs by Warren Trest and Don Dodd was widely reviewed; samples:

Wings of Denial:The Alabama Air National Guard 's Covert Role at the Bay of Pigs (Book). Newton, Wesley Phillips. Alabama Review, Jul 01, 2003; Vol. 56, No. 3, p. 219-221. Reviews the book 'Wings of Denial: The Alabama Air National Guard's Covert Role at the... more
Revisiting the Bay of Pigs. Shuler, Eric. National Guard, May 01, 2001; Vol. 55, No. 5Reviews the book 'Wings of Denial,' by Warren Trest and Don Dodd. more...

I can provide these reviews to anyone interested. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting AUTHOR as per K.e.coffman's analysis.Icewhiz (talk) 05:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:AUTHOR. Article needs an upgrade.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Mercado[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT -- contrary to the text of the article, her roles in the stated movies were all uncredited, thus not "significant". Being an unremarkable contestant on a reality TV show is not significant either. The article contains no sources that are independent of the subject and is mostly fluff. CapitalSasha ~ talk 06:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails on WP:ENT but also full of peacock language, unsourced “facts” and reads like a fans page. NZFC^(talk) 06:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails on WP:ENT. Non neutral, possibly written by a fan. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Neutrality is an issue too. --Jack Frost (talk) 06:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corrin Stellakis[edit]

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

Article was deprodded with explanation "title is notable". That may be but as we have seen previously that doesn't automatically confer notability. When I went to expand & reference this article I was able to find almost no significant coverage in third-party reliable sources to establish notability --- PageantUpdater (talk) 04:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete beauty queens need sources to back up articles, and these are lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, according to you, articles on women should be held to stricter than usual standards at Wikipedia? gidonb (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Gidonb: can you please show us where she there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Extensive searching when I copyedited this showed up nothing more extensive than what is already in the article which are passing mentions at best. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For example: half this article 1, 3 paragraphs, 3 paragraphs in mixed coverage, 6 paragraphs here, 2 out of 5 paragraphs in mixed coverage, half this article 2, entire article, and that's just the beginning.

I saw most of those when copyediting the article - generally in past AFDs of this sort of minor local coverage from small local newspapers as you have provided enough isn't enough. They're mainly fluff pieces. But we'll let the community decide. I'm not deletionist by nature but I think this article should be held to the same standards as so many other pageant titleholders who have been deleted with more coverage available (albeit in local papers etc)than you have provided above. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Each article should be judged on its own merits. As I said this is just the tip of the iceberg and all significant coverage. I hope people respect the work of their fellow Wikipedians enough to look through all sources. gidonb (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, the Vietnam magazine is national in that nation's capital. Vietnam has 96 million residents, that's almost a third of the US population and larger than Germany, France, UK, etc. This is website #14 in the entire country of Vietnam! Maybe withdraw the nomination? gidonb (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely doubt the content of that Vietnamese fluff piece ("her dress broke!") is enough to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:GNG but again the community can decide that--- PageantUpdater (talk) 23:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A little drama also gets covered among all the rest. There were 2 significant articles/coverages in the same magazine in Vietnam in the short list above and not as implied (which was already a new version after it had been supposedly all local)! There is a total of 13 national articles from Vietnam about Stellakis. About half of these underwrite her notability. I am puzzled how your searches were so "extensive" but missed all the national and substantial coverage. gidonb (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since article subject meets GNG user stood correct to remove the prod. Now when I remove such a label I also include references to justify this. Clearly this was not done and the references in the article are insufficient to prove notability. As a result it looks like prodder, on the other side, sticks to an unsubstantiated opinion that there is a case for deletion, while a simple Google News search supplies enough valid references to meet the WP:GNG. See my exchange above with the prodder/nominator for changing versions, confusion on what is out there, and distraction from the main coverage. gidonb (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to the nominator for sending me a notice about the AFD because I deprodded it. Have waited to see other's comments and it is clear that Gidonb has found more than enough substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources that are more than local (although local is allowed) so that WP:BASIC is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many sources have been shown, including some from the U.S., some from Vietnam, and some from the Philippines. Unscintillating (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Excepting the nomination, the only other delete !vote referenced local news sources, a concern later cauterised with the provision of further sources. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 10:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Colepaugh[edit]

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

Article, with some advertorial overtones, about a musician with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable sources to support it: the sources here are a press release, two concert listings calendars and a single (deadlinked) news article in his own hometown newspaper. As always, every musician is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists -- he must be properly sourced as actually passing a notability criterion, but nothing here accomplishes that at all. Bearcat (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You can't judge notability solely by looking at the content of an article. There is a substantial bio at Allmusic, and further coverage from CBC, the Telgraph Journal, and more listed in the reviews section on his website, some of which are from reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The CBC link is from the CBC's local news bureau in Saint John, New Brunswick, not the CBC's national news division, and the Telegraph-Journal is a newspaper in Saint John, New Brunswick — but local media very routinely give coverage to hometown musicians who have accomplished nothing that would satisfy NMUSIC, so we can't keep an article about a musician just because it's sourced to a couple of pieces of purely local coverage. And AllMusic tries as much as possible to include a profile of every musician who ever appeared on any record at all — so it's an acceptable source for supplementary verification of facts, but not a source where the existence of an AllMusic profile counts as evidence of notability per se. So if those are the only sources you can find besides pointing me to the section of his own website where he advertorially highlights uncited compliments that various people have given him, then no, that's not good enough. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying I think he's notable (but he may be), but you really should do a search for coverage before bringing an article to AfD and state what you found. And no, Allmusic doesn't cover everyone or try to. It's a perfectly good reliable source. --Michig (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They do have gaps in their coverage, and they do make mistakes, but they do at least attempt to include everyone. Every single album that has a profile on that site at all includes a list of every musician who was involved in making it, if they were able to locate the credits list at all — and every person included in that list always links to a separate "musician" profile that at least tries to list all of that person's album credits, and often adds biographical information as well if they're able to find any. Again, they do have gaps and errors and oversights, I'm not denying that — but yes, they do at least attempt to have at least a basic credits page for every musician who has album credits at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having a page for every musician isn't the same as 'covering' every musician. They don't tend to write about minor acts of only local interest. The BBC and Billboard also seems to have a 'page' for every artist - that doesn't make the BBC and Billboard useless for establishing notability either. --Michig (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the local coverage does not add up to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hello, I was the one who originally wrote it...and I admit, I am very green. I've noted your comments above. Thank you. I'd like to suggest updating it. I have national links but I didn't think they were part of the eligibility. For example - Gibson Guitars - http://www.gibson.com/News-Lifestyle/Features/en-us/Canadian-Pride_-New-Gibson-Art.aspx , LA Presse when he played the Olympics in Russia - https://www.lesoleil.com/archives/roch-voisine-toutes-guitares-dehors-9d5f38c2e9b3d3c279abe82b8a77b433, http://canadianbeats.ca/2016/01/29/review-chris-colepaugh/ , Exclaim Magazine (National) - http://exclaim.ca/artists/chris_colepaugh_cosmic_crew , http://top100canadianblog.blogspot.ca/2016/03/music-review-of-day-chris-colepaugh-and.html, http://www.whenthehornblows.com/2016/03/single-review-chris-colepaugh-cosmic-crew-my-world.html, http://musicnerd.ca/review-chris-colepaugh-and-the-cosmic-crew-rnr-malkin-music-fontana-north/ , http://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/chris-colepaugh-wins-top-award-at-ecmas-1.1016054, https://www.patreon.com/posts/in-review-chris-5175635, http://www.musicemissions.com/blog/reviews/rnr-review/ , https://www.socan.ca/fr/news/colepaugh-belliveau-win-socan-honours-2011-music-nb-awards, http://indiecan.com/home.php, http://www.breadnmolasses.com/2016/02/29/chris-colepaugh-the-cosmic-crew-album-launch-party-in-moncton/, http://musicreviewblurbs.blogspot.ca/2011/03/chris-colepaugh-and-crew.html, plus listing the artists he has played with as a session performer - Roch Voisine, Matt Andersen, Gordie Johnson and sponosrships - http://www.blackbridgeamps.com/about.html, (Gibson, above) ...I would like to go in and update it. My apologies I did not put in the national criteria. In addition, is music has been featured on an international TV show ( I Need to find a better link) - https://www.tunefind.com/artist/chris-colepaugh-and-the-cosmic-crew Degrassi, he has won several music awards ( ECMA (per links above), SOCAN, MNB ...I will provide links as well as radio rotation at major radio in Canada ( I will additionally provide links), and featured on TV - National Broadcast of the ECMA Awards 2008 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hxtdlncmpsw, Breakfast TV 2004 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KzHnX18P7Q&t=1s, ECMA National awards 2002 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHAr4CDM8VQ, BTV Edmonton AB - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4DrYH4-3fU, played with the NB symphony - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9wjuwjIcLo, Matt Andersen with Chris Colepaugh - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxrZBZFf-Ns, Gordie Johnson (Big Sugar) with Chris Colepaugh - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2j0bxMLycg4, Hillside Club- US - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2euhwr1v14 , Living Room - NY - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFFm442g9DA, Performance with Samantha Robichaud - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmqrVWdYEZU&list=PLGDoJhDEe8JCiIqJh8E2N8jbNny-YWP1n, Chris in Paris playing pedal steel with Roch Voisine - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqsb7VzDL54 .... please give me some time to properly document this for the wiki page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldaigle (talk • contribs) 09:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a couple of decent sources in Ldaigle's list above, which when added to the coverage I identified is, I believe, sufficient to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(follow-up)KeepAdditional resources - Winner - http://torontoexclusive.com/awards2007/provincialnominees.html, Canadian Musician Magazine - http://canadianmusician.com/showcase/?s=colepaugh, Top 50 in Campus Radio - http://www.earshot-online.com/charts/index.cfm?intChartTypeID=101&dWeekOfID=2016-02-16, older CMJ charting - CMJ - CHSR, WXAV, CIUT, CFCR (https://www.google.ca/search?q=colepaugh&tbs=bkt:m,bkms:1168684103302644221&tbm=bks&ei=AtrtWc32IIjVmwGl2ruoCg&start=0&sa=N&biw=1920&bih=949&dpr=1), Additional Degrassi Info -

Additional Degrassi - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1326445/soundtrack, Traynor Amps - http://traynoramps.com/artists/c/chris_colepaugh/, Ben Rod Electric - http://www.benrod-electro.fr/html/fr/artistes__1/Chris-Colepaugh-Cosmic-Crew,-Shania-Twain_19.html, ... I am having difficulty finding a copy of the Relix Review online, but I have a digital scanned copy, Music Producer of the Year - https://www.telegraphjournal.com/telegraph-journal/story/48986664/capital-region-artists-fare?source=story-related, http://www.chartattack.com/news/2007/12/18/joel-plaskett-emergency-declared-at-ecma-nominees-announcement/ ... I will work on it this week to update it properly and adhere to the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldaigle (talk • contribs) 12:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that notability, for the purposes of qualifying for a Wikipedia article, cannot be supported by YouTube videos, blogs, primary sources or IMDb — which means that the vast majority of the links you provided in that wall of text above aren't helping anything. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Bearcat. What would be the best page to understand the articles that can be used. I have found several pages, but I am not sure I am on the correct one.

Here is states: 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.[note 1] This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following: Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3] Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases.

http://www.gibson.com/News-Lifestyle/Features/en-us/Canadian-Pride_-New-Gibson-Art.aspx - the official Gibson guitar page / Chris is endorsed by Gibson http://canadianmusician.com/showcase/2003/03/ - Canadian Musician is a National Magazine in Canada http://torontoexclusive.com/awards2007/provincialnominees.html - official award announcement for Toronto Exclusive Awards http://www.earshot-online.com/charts/index.cfm?intChartTypeID=101&dWeekOfID=2016-02-16 - Top 50 Campus Radio ( Earshot is the National Campus and Community Radio Report) For the ECMA awards, there is no archive. I can find an old press release on their site for Entertainer Of The Year and Rock Artist of the Year - http://ecma.com/news/the-trews-chris-colepaugh-the-crew-david-myles-rose-cousins-pick-up-second-music-award-at-ecma

Would another wiki count as a reliable source? http://degrassi.wikia.com/wiki/Lost_in_Love_(1)#Featured Music - for music placement

http://top100canadianblog.blogspot.ca/2016/03/music-review-of-day-chris-colepaugh-and.html - album review http://artsnb.ca/site/en/files/2015/05/Pan-Am-2015_EN.pdf - announcement of performance at Pan Am Games in Toronto 2015 through the Government Agency Arts NB

Also mention in the Daniel Pearl World Music Days as Producer/Guitarist - http://www.danielpearlmusicdays.org/artist_detail.php?id=116 Roch Voisine - http://info-culture.biz/2011/02/28/roch-voisine-et-sa-tournee-americana-quebec-tour/ Working with Kevin Scott MacMichael - http://jam.canoe.com/Music/Pop_Encyclopedia/M/MacMichael_Kevin.html Fontana/Universal - http://www.fontananorth.com/?p=313 http://extreme-vidz.com/mtb/break-cycle - Break The Cycle - film placement http://www.mainstagecases.com/artists.html - Mainstage Cases Endorsement http://www.contacteast.ca/about/awards-and-nominations.php - Winner of Contact East Touring Award https://open.spotify.com/track/1GC6IFVGkUriDhtHvu2W6T - 270,088 spins on Spotify https://www.musicnb.org/en/festival-506/mnb-awards - Music Nominations - MNB Producer Of The Year, SOCAN Songwriter of the Year, MNB ROck Recording of the Year, MNB Musician of the Year https://www.telegraphjournal.com/times-transcript/story/48496672/music-nb-releases-awards - MNB Group, SOCAN & Album

Finding the online source material for a lot of the articles/videos is a challenge! Would you have a suggestions to get links to archival newspaper interviews/reviews etc? Thank you! I also can't find a copy of the Relix article, but I have a copy of the page - https://www.dropbox.com/sh/f2sxe4g5sy6ttag/AABSK8GueIV9QdRMU_s5P8pia?dl=0 https://www.telegraphjournal.com/telegraph-journal/story/100334035/ - Performance with Matt Andersen

For one thing, exactly no number of listens or views on any internet streaming platform constitutes a notability claim at all — we care about media coverage, not numbers of listens on Spotify or Soundcloud, or numbers of views on YouTube or number of subscribers on Facebook.

And when it comes to our reliable sourcing, what we're talking about is media coverage in newspapers, magazines and books, not just "any website at all that mentions his name". For example, having an endorsement relationship with a musical instrument manufacturing company does not support notability, if your source for that relationship is the website of that company — a source has to represent media coverage, fully independent of any direct affiliation with either party to that relationship. It is not okay just because it's technically independent of Colepaugh, because it isn't independent of the company with which he has a business relationship. And by the same token, an award nomination is only notable if and when media write about that award's nominations as news — it is not notable if the source you provide is that award's own self-published website about itself, because the extent to which media do or don't care about that award is the definition of whether that award is notable enough to get its nominees over NMUSIC's award-nomination criterion or not. And playing at any music event or festival only supports notability if it's referenced to media coverage about his performance, and not if your reference for that appearance is the festival's own self-published website about itself. And on and so forth: to count toward notability, a reference has to be media coverage about the distinction being claimed, not the website of any person or organization or event with any form of direct relationship to the thing being claimed. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UpdateI have connected with someone who knows a lot more about Wikipedia than I, and they are helping me rewrite it - with attention paid to all the requirements. I just need a bit more time to finalize and get the updated version up for review.

Very weak keep Wow, those are a lot of references—most of them merely reaffirming existence more than anything else. While I’m a bit troubled that what this subject has accomplished—routine and trivial press, minor awards, small-time airplay, recording and performance history—fails to measure on a scale that would convey significance under most people’s definition of notability, I nonetheless cede to rules of wikipedia criteria. Among the clutter are a few solid sources (such as a review in Relix) that convey’s credible recognition and helps this subject squeak through. This would be an easier “keep” if there was some indication of success (such as chart/sales, perhaps?) or recognition other than “rave reviews” from unimportant sources. That Allmusic profile is unfortunately written in the same kind of advertorial tone they are guilty of increasingly allowing by relying on submitted content rather than doing their own original research. Both it and this wikipedia page could benefit from editing out the hype. Still, there are enough credible sources, even if the coverage therein is trivial, to craft an okay article. Glad to see in this updated comment section that someone is presently working on it. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I sampled one of the sources found by Ldaigle, and found this quote, "For two decades now Chris Colepaugh has been a staple of the Moncton music scene, an anniversary that he, along with his Cosmic Crew, will be marking with the release of their ninth, and possibly best, studio album ‘RnR’. Having been first introduced to this group with their third album, 16 Second Solace I’ve had the pleasure to watch them grow from early in their career and they just keep getting stronger with each offering." Unscintillating (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asymmetry Principle[edit]

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

Tagged as primary-sourced ad-like for 7 years; talkpage has multiple editors questioning notability. The article doesn't actually assert any notability either. The topic-phrase has multiple meanings that are fairly different from this energy/economic sense, and I can't find substantial independent refs for the topic at hand, so "non-notable economic theory". Page was created by a briefly-active editor whose sole activity was creating a series of pages about the theory's author and his theories and publications. DMacks (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. CapitalSasha ~ talk 06:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – unhelpful to readers. Thincat (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In addition to the reasons given by the nom, this seems to be a trivial concept. The concept might be worthy of about two sentences somewhere, not a whole page of discussion. -- Gpc62 (talk) 05:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I went looking for secondary sources citing the single book reference in the article, and it's pretty sparse for citations, much less discussion of the principle. Seems pretty clearly non-notable. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Supranational India[edit]

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

Non-notable pageant for men. No in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. The article was previously deleted at AfD as Mister Supranational and Mister Supranational 2016 (the male counterpart to equally non-notable Miss Supranational, an article that has been deleted multiple times, and recreated almost as many times). Fails WP:EVENT and general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I declined a speedy G4 on this because it wasn't on the same topic as the previous AfD'd articles - but that probably supports the deletion further since it's on a subtopic of a subject that has recently been deemed not notable. ansh 666 05:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. I don't see how this could be encyclopedic. Fails WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:COVERAGE, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and WP:DIVERSE. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 07:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are two sources provided, one of which is an external link to the organization's site and another one highlights the victory of the candidate who was sent to represent the nation to the pageant. This article is not about the so-called International Pageant Mister Supranational and is all about the Indian representatives to the international pageant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helper V1 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Helper V1 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Delete The article failed notability requirement.-Richie Campbell (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs more references but is notable enough. If country like USA can have trivial beauty pageant pages like National Sweetheart and Miss Exotic World Pageant so I see no problem with the notability of the page. Besides the reference provided is from a reputed national newspaper.JayB91 (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in a deletion debate so can you please demonstrate how it actually meets notability requirements mentioned by JudeccaXIII above and also if it need more references why not to cite it? Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The event is much notable over the nation all after the recent winning of Srinidhi Ramesh Shetty who won the title Miss Supranational 2016 is from India and also there is India's representative bagged 2nd runner-up at Mister Supranataional 2016.--Helper V1 (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Helper V1: I changed your second Keep to Comment, you can't !vote more than once. As I said above every article on wikipedia must meet certain requirements, these include verifiablity, and notability. Please only continue to comment here if you have something new to say. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 15:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Does not have any encyclopedic value. The pageant itself has been around only a few years WP:LASTING and is WP:TOSOON. FITINDIA 16:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest deleting this article even though I'm saying upfront, loud and clear that I did not and will not check its notability. This is why. Since the root article has been deleted I believe that, from a perspective of information organization, it is wrong to spin off a subsidiary article such as the discussion per geography or year, regardless of notability. Now the root has been deleted after an AfD. This AfD can be right or wrong, but even if the latter would be the case, problems should be addressed head on. Right now the root AfD should be viewed as the "law of the land". Translated to WP jargon and linking to the relevant articles, since no justification for WP:SPINOFF this article should be viewed as an unjustified WP:CFORK, regardless of WP:N. gidonb (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please note that the creator of this article have been blocked from editing for advertising only, likely undeclared paid COI and likely sockpuppet of Sky Groove, repeatedly recreating deleted articles from the sock farm. GSS (talk|c|em) 02:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic (Cognito album)[edit]

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

Unimportant album, sold poorly, no reviews that I can find. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Binksternet (talk) 04:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Obuh[edit]

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

Found nothing notable about the subject's career. Aside the promotional materials which could not be sourced, the subject has no hit song nor notable awards. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no hit song, zero semi-notable nomination or award. The case of GNG is subjective and should not be considered here. There is nothing noteworthy about this artiste in the Nigerian music industry. Darreg (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that many sources were provided in the previous AfD discussion for this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aside the dead links, I have gone through the references. I also watched the viral BBC documentary when it was aired. If the BBC documentary happened last year, I would have voted keep, because I could argue that there would have been a strong chance of him having a decent musical career and getting sig routine coverage. But it was was seven years ago! Yet no new significant coverage in RS that isn't overly based in the 2010 incident. WP:ONEEVENT and WP:10YT applies. I ask myself, Q1: What is his occupation? A: Musician. Q2: Does he pass WP:MUSICBIO? A: No. For his birthname to still be his WP:COMMONNAME tells you so much about his musical career. My vote remains unchanged. Except someone wants to say that winning the "Google Africa Connected" award confers notability. Darreg (talk) 10:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO and no detailed coverage of life or work in WP:RS Ammarpad (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ja, usually GNG trumps other notability criteria and not the other way around. Policy based criteria such as BLP or OR trump GNG but notability isn't a policy and policies are not at issue here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hicks (game designer)[edit]

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

His game may be notable but there's nothing to show that he himself is. The only significant/reliable mention is the article in The Southern but that alone does not satisfy WP:BIO, the impact of the game is not significant enough for notability by association. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, while writing this I found some good TV sources on him in the Midwest. I didn’t include them because I thought the Wired (magazine) interview and game-specific sources were a better fit.

KTVI in St. Louis aired this interview: http://fox2now.com/2015/02/08/jefferson-county-man-creates-video-game-for-sony-playstation-4/

KFVS-TV in Cape Girardeau, MO aired this on him: http://www.kfvs12.com/story/28161624/illinois-video-game-creator-is-beating-the-odds

WSIL-TV in Southern Illinois aired this: https://web.archive.org/web/20150112030347/http://www.wsiltv.com/news/local/Local-Game-Developer-Signs-With-Sony-287990851.html

Also, here’s another newspaper article on him: http://www.register-news.com/news/hicks-signs-game-deal-with-sony/article_a698376b-d7a1-5a1f-9007-eeb2fd338c0a.html

I think these sources fit what you’re asking. If they look good to you I’ll include them on the page. Indiestation (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do think those sources are a better fit for proving notability. I'll defer to others' opinion on this as I haven't encountered this sort of case where local news is used to prove notability rather than the game journalist press, but it does seem more reliable than the previous sources._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to pass WP:GNG to me. Govvy (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG is not the sole criteria for biographies. Per WP:CREATIVE, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work". While he is mentioned in plenty of local news articles, they don't give an indication that his work is well known and significant, besides a mention of being part of GDC. I don't see a pressing reason for him to have an article as opposed to the game that he developed, it seems WP:TOOSOON._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:GNG has higher priority than specific criterias. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do see quite enough references to pass WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is a clear absence of consensus for any course of action at this time, and substantial improvement appears to be underway. This can be revisited in the future if editors feel that progress has not culminated in a clear showing of notability. bd2412 T 11:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per Villand[edit]

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

Just not close to meeting WP:GNG. All the cited references are either self-published or of local, minuscule interest. Geschichte (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Geschichte, today I have contacted all universities that are named in the page. Already yesterday I found a newspaper article about the disease ALS and Per Villand, searched for external links, found Scholar links, got an email from Terje Johansen, who works at Tromsø university, and who studied together with Per Villand, worked as a coauthor at a paper to get the Cand.Scient degree, and I have added the link as a reference in "Studies".

I contacted today the university in Ås (Norges landbrukshøgskole/NMBU) for a similar link to prove the Dr. Scient degree or title. It was difficult for them to search because I did not know in which department of biology Per Villand was studying, so I sent some links and a Scholar list with his name. I asked Terje Johansen to help me find the right department which makes it easier to search in archives.
I have worked at all missing details and I sincerely hope, though I did not already get all missing factors, this is convincing Wikipedia that the page of Per Villand should not be deleted, but kept. I do not believe this page should be a disambiguation page, redirected or merged. It has its value in its own, not because of the studies, but because Per Villand was and is beloved by all who have known him. He has inspired and impressed all. Because of his disease and how he handled this insane difficult disease, how he even cooperated with professors to find causes and maybe healing methods, is worth it to share with the world. DutchColours (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here again Geschichte to react on "minuscule interest". The page is about a person who died because of the deadly disease ALS at the age of 44. He created indeed a poor website according to what one is used to when made by a totally healthy person. Per Villand created it with his eye movements, because he was for 99% paralysed, lame, disabled. This is showing strength, a positivity that goes beyond any normal, or even most perfect human power that can create the most wonderful website. DutchColours (talk) --DutchColours (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Geschichte, I removed a sentence about the newspaper in the former message after I have read again the rules: all newspapers seem to be considered as not independent, and therefore not the right source. Today I discussed all around this Per Villand page with others and we concluded that it would be at least a better idea to make it a subpage (redirecting possibility, instead of deleting, or merging) of Hovet, Buskerud, also my project, and yes, Per Villand belongs to this village in Norway. It is important that a link to another Wikipedia page is there, in "Notable residents", to redirect visitors of this Hovet, Buskerud page to Per Villand. To add it on that page as a chapter is not right, because it would take away the attention from the main subject. Today I continue with finding the title of the book Per Villand wrote, the ISBN number, and continue with searching for more references. DutchColours (talk) --DutchColours (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say? Wikipedia builds on second-party sources. The current references are: 1) Geni, not necessarily independent. 2) Solhjell, local history, brief mention 3) Hallingdølen, local newspaper 4) Villand, published by the subject 5) journal, can't access, but I'm guessing published by the subject 6) cell.com, published by the subject. You don't really need to find the book written by him, it's published by the subject so not suitable as a reference to Villand. Albeit probably brave and commendable, Per Villand has not been demonstrated to have coverage in the necessary amount of independent sources. But you can try www.lokalhistoriewiki.no. Geschichte (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Geschichte, I have seen wikipedia pages with lesser content than I have created, and with not any link or reference. Pity that I did not bookmark these. How spectacular someone has to be? That there is a book, written by him, is spectacular, because he wrote it with his eye movements, he was for 99% lame, disabled, could not use his hands and fingers. I am not speaking nor writing in Norwegian yet, I live in Norway, yes, and learning the language slowly with my 68 years old memory. You should know Norway better, then you would not direct me to a library for this. The Norwegians in the area where I live (far away from cities and other villages, it is more a hamlet, have hardly any proud, do not talk too much, are in fact always silent. History made them so. It belongs to the Norwegian character. So, to shout around about people, who they were, are, etc. is utterly rare. That is not Norwegian style. The land has been occupied by Denmark, Sweden, and has hardly one hundred years independence. The psychology of the Norwegians is not understood when one never has lived in an occupied country, overruled by another country, and not any law was offering rights. Within this hierarchy is another hierarchy: the people of Hovet belong to a lesser place in the hierarchical pyramid. Created by oppressors in neighbour villages. Not because they ARE lesser, but they were and are the most easy to suppress. The most humble.

Again: I cannot add the information of Per Villand's page to the by me started and maintained Hovet, Buskerud page because I have more to add there and the page will become too long. It is a village with much history, that is hardly to be found somewhere on the web. Wikipedia-English is in fact too modern: the Norwegian wikipedia has, that is obvious for me, by experience, a much milder law system than the English wikipedia version. There is not a Norwegian Wikipedia page about Per Villand. I cannot write yet in Norwegian. But I can try. Is that an option? And, WHAT exactly you want Per Villand to be in his "passport" to be allowed to enter Wikipedia land?--DutchColours (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geschichte, I have read about creating new wikipedia pages. Even a few lines are enough to create a page. I did more. Much more. There is not any rule that makes this Per Villand page worthless. It has the right to exist. I can even start a page about myself. I read in NRC, a Dutch newspaper with excellent research about subjects, that Wikipedia has rules concerning editing. It is not allowed that companies hire people to edit a wikipedia page, to make their name more shining. But these editors are there, they do a payed job, and nobody can do anything about it. This is the power of money. Title of the article: "De schimmige wereld van stiekeme Wikipedia-updates", translated: "The shady world of sneaky Wikipedia updates". there is a lot in that article worth it to be read, I can recommend it to everybody, also you, Geschichte.

It makes clear that what I wrote yesterday about the English wikipedia, is not so far from the full truth. The English Wikipedia is mostly runned by modern state moderators. The modern state is related with all what makes the modern state so "modern", and not so transparent. Modern is not per definition "honorable" or "high quality", on the contrary.

In this case, I write about an honorable person, who was born in a hamlet in Norway, and who got unfortunately a disease that killed him. If not, the man would have been able to continue his studies, and who knows how huge his name would have become. Again: he did something not even Shakespeare did: writing a book, running a website, while being lame for 99%. Writing with modern tools that work on eye movements. Professors from Oslo have been working together with him to dismantle the ALS disease, a killing disease where more and more people die from. He did not get enough time from life. Life became unbearable. The machines were closed, after a well thought decision. Per Villand has proved to be a master mind, controlling his mind by his human spirit that made it able to exist with even a disease like this. The most difficult moments were when he became angry, he told, because indeed, when you are for 99% lame, emotions are still there, and anger creates a hell when you have not any expression form to get rid of it. But he managed it. He is, though a humble man, a human being with high standards, and deserves a place among other Wikipedia people. When even a page about Adolf Hitler is there, and more human bastards, why not about a great human being from Hovet? He is an example for all of us. A source of inspiration in this insane world. --DutchColours (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geschichte, I have been in your user page. I have clicked on Asle Amundsen. This is the text: Asle Amundsen (born 27 June 1952) is a Norwegian politician for the Socialist Left Party. He served as a deputy representative to the Parliament of Norway from Nordland during the term 1985–1989. He met during 52 days of parliamentary session.[1] The first deputy of Hanna Kvanmo, he worked as a farmer in Andøy outside of politics.[2]

Question Geschichte: What exactly makes this man so valuable that he deserves a Wikipedia page, and Per Villand not? I guess that Per Villand deserves MORE a place in Wikipedia than this Asle Amundsen. there are pages that you started with people that are not of a higher value as Per Villand. You wrote even about a footballer. What makes football of such a high standard that footballers, even without any glory, are accepted in Wikipedia, and not a man who has proved to be able to fight against something more heavy than a football team in a competition? Per Villand had his own competition. He is a champion. Though he lost. But he was fighting against a deadly disease, that is something else. No, Geschichte, you have proved yourself with your own pages that Per Villand deserves a place here, and that his page deserves to be accepted. Totally. With or without sources, because I saw that you named a book, written by Anders Gåsland, but you did not mention the ISBN number. Nobody can check if this book really exists. Today I am going to check all pages you created, to compare them with the Per Villand page, and adding notes with questions, what exactly makes these pages more valuable than Per Villand's page. Like this for instance: Good Clean Fun. I also love fun, clean fun, but I cannot see the fun of deleting a page of an honorable person like Per Villand.

Note Geschichte, what you wrote yourself on the top of this page: All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements. Your own pages are a proof and I added the links to these pages so that other Wikipedia editors can check themselves. Also for the terms on the top of this page: a disambiguation page, redirected or merged to another article, then consider recommending "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge" instead of deletion. could be used for several of your own pages, but they survived this and are there anyway. How is this possible? I did not check more pages, until now, I have to do some other work. I expect that you do not delete the page of Per Villand, but I do expect that you delete your note on the top of that page, about deleting. I made a backup of that page, and of this page. To have proof for other discussions. --DutchColours (talk) 07:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note Geschichte, that I am still working at completing this article about Per Villand. Still waiting for more emails from the University Umeå in Sweden and the University in Stanford, USA. Got some, with PDF's and a confirmation, but without a public link. Also waiting for the ISBN number for the history book about Hovet, Buskerud. Written by Per Villand. I cannot force time, I cannot force people. --DutchColours (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Geschichte : Quoting what you wrote on October 17: The current references are: 1) Geni, not necessarily independent. 2) Solhjell, local history, brief mention 3) Hallingdølen, local newspaper 4) Villand, published by the subject 5) journal, can't access, but I'm guessing published by the subject 6) cell.com, published by the subject. You don't really need to find the book written by him, it's published by the subject so not suitable as a reference to Villand. Albeit probably brave and commendable, Per Villand has not been demonstrated to have coverage in the necessary amount of independent sources. But you can try www.lokalhistoriewiki.no. Geschichte (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) MyHeritage. Note: Geni is not the same as MyHeritage. So, a mistake. Check this out. And: Geni and MyHeritage are excellent sources concerning old names, and the history of names, traditions in using names, as in Norway where even the region where one lived is added to the name. check the family tree of Pål Olson Grøt. His name was Grøt when he started living in the area named Grøt. Before his name was Neeraal, because he was born in Hol, in the street Neeraal. And he was named Nerol, because this is the name as people say it (etymology) So: MyHeritage is a library of history. Some people make a mess out of it. Not all of them. the same with Wikipedia: not all pages are really brilliant. Some are even poor, but there anyway. Even pages that you created, dear Geschichte.

2) Note: Solhjell, this is a mistake, it is not local history, it is the history of Hol Kommune, that is not local, but "kommunal". And even IF it was local, what is wrong with local information? Is local news in Norway (you are Norwegian) lesser important than the news from NRK or Aftenbladet, or more of these, Bergen, Oslo, etc? How outdated this view is. And how arrogant. This is discrimination!

3) Note: Hallingdølen, local newspaper? No! so, this is a mistake! It is a regional newspaper. But even if it was a local newspaper you are wrong in making preferences. Again, you discriminate! Local newspapers are important for the facts where the "big" newspapers do not spend time for, not because it is lesser important, but because they do not have enough paper for all the local details.

4) Note: Villand, published by the subject'. Respectless!! The subject is for a "thing", an abstract thing, not a human being. Per Villand deserves respect!! You humiliate! And, Per Villand wrote this while he was ill, with his hands on a keyboard? No! With a pen? No! How? With eyemovements. WHO can write such website? How many have created a website with eye movements? One!! Per Villand. Worth to be watched, and named. Respect!!

5) Note: journal, can't access, but I'm guessing published by the subject. Again: Per Villand is a human, not a subject. Which journal do you mean? I cannot find where you write about. Reference please.

6) Note: cell.com, published by the subject. NO!! HUGE MISTAKE by you Geschichte! this is from the Dept. of Plant Biology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. If you would have clicked on the link there you would have seen this. He was not alone in this: all names: David M. Kehoe, Per Villand, Shauna Somerville. This is published by: © 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. The names there have links. I consider your examination Geschichte, as shallow and respectless towards Per Villand, towards science, to Wikipedia, to me. I hope some other moderators will find what is written here. --DutchColours (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)....[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to article creator DutchColours that you should not be formatting this AFD in this manner. a) Geschichte is not the "moderator" he is the nominator b) this bizarre formatting of the AFD page into your various "Reaction" sections has got to stop, and should be removed. Read WP:AFDFORMAT for more information. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the worst of the odd formatting in order to simplify matters. BigHaz - Schreit mich an

Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a cool guy, but I would have to say delete unless more coverage in third-party sources is found. CapitalSasha ~ talk 06:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of in-depth third-party coverage. Bizarre formatting removed at this point, too. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All my comments were relevant. I am sure these have not been read. What are third-party sources? Some examples please. --DutchColours (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to find the user page of CapitalSasha There is no user profile with information. I searched also for the user page of Rfdpro who has added the first warning. There is no profile. How can I be accused and judged by a team without a face? I repeat my question: what are third party sources? I am still editing the page, and wait for references. There are Wikipedia pages with lesser content, and lesser references than I have. I do not understand 1% of all the threats for deleting. It feels as a power system, towards new users. --DutchColours (talk) 07:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
About: "A cool guy": May I remind you (and you would have known if you would have read the page) that Per Villand is dead? "A cool guy" is a populist term and not respectful for a scientist who lost his life because of a literally breathtaking disease.
Question for BigHaz: bizarre formatting? I created a layout that was easier to read, because all my words were necessary to defend the page for being threatened for deletion. The threats even worsen. What is the deadline? If this is an impossible limit, then it is a lost case. DutchColours (talk) 07:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question for BigHaz: Have you checked the external links? Really? Can you offer me a comparable page that IS accepted in Wikipedia? WHAT could be third party sources here, how many do you want (because there are wikipedia pages with hardly any source, and just some lines), so that I can LEARN by studying WHAT is accepted by Wikipedia? Thanks. DutchColours (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question for BigHaz: Can you explain to me why the utterly poor Asle Amundsen page is accepted totally as a mature Wikipedia page? Thanks. DutchColours (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question for BigHaz: It could be an idea to reduce the content of the Per Villand page to exact the same total of words, and exact the same amount of references. DutchColours (talk) 08:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some responses. Firstly, one ping is more than enough (I watchlist AfDs I've contributed to, so in this instance I would have seen your response/s anyway). Four pings is manifestly excessive, regardless.

1) I can't speak for anyone else, but I've not said that your comments were relevant, irrelevant or otherwise. I've read them and digested them. There's a lot of them, and you'll find that concision is normally a virtue (do as I say, not as I do, here!), but I for one have read what you've written. "Third-party sources" are those independent of the subject of the article and/or their close associates. Unlike many terms used frequently on Wikipedia, this one is used precisely as it is out in the "real world". If you've not done so as yet - and I don't mean to point the finger at you if you have - I'd recommend starting with the notability policy for a description of how and what I and other editors are looking for. As Villand was a published academic, you also might want to look at the notability guideline for academics, which combines with notability in general as well. In the case of Villand here, one example I could think of in relation to his academic career would be other scholars citing him extensively and favourably. That's just one example, of course, and I'm sure there would be plenty of others.

2) Rfdpro doesn't presently have a user page, which would be why you can't find it. Not every user has created one, and they're within their rights either way. The user page of CapitalSasha loads fine for me when I click on that user's name in the signature on their comment, and contains what I would consider plenty of information (a subjective assessment, but there we are). I don't know whether your comment regarding "a team without a face" is a reference to the lack of anyone's real names being on their pages, but users don't tend to list those unless they wish to - I don't have my real name anywhere on my page either, and never have done. Leaving aside the fact that there's nothing to be gained by "repeat[ing] [your] question" within an hour of asking it (I'm in Australia and was eating dinner at the time you asked, hence my ability to respond reasonably rapidly - catch me overnight my time and you'll obviously have to wait longer), I think you may have the process slightly around the wrong way. The object of the exercise is to have the sources before creating the page, rather than acquiring them later. Many users prefer to create their pages as Drafts first, to avoid them being tagged for deletion "mid-stream", as it were. The fact that there are pages with less content, fewer references and more problems doesn't really stack up as a reason to keep this particular page, as it frequently means that nobody has seen the article in question and proposed it for deletion. If there's an article you're sufficiently concerned about, you're entirely within your rights to nominate it accordingly. If you're having difficulty with the process (any part of it, from article-creation to where we are now), please feel free to comment on my User Talk page with any questions you have. I'm more than happy to assist where I can. Just remember, though, that there is a time difference and my assistance may involve referring you onto other areas rather than giving you a definitive answer. I've been around here for a great many years, but the project is truly immense and I can't claim to be a specialist in every part of it. I'd suggest that those comments go to my User Talk so as not to complicate matters here.

3) [I'll leave the response regarding "a cool guy" for the user who made it] I used the term "bizarre" for the formatting because that's what it is. While the format we use here may not be to your liking, it is precisely that which has been used for any number of years, as the link from Shawn in Montreal makes clear. Administrators (I'm one, although I won't be closing this discussion) rely on the format being followed to make the call on whether the article stays or goes. Discussions which vary from that format risk the wrong outcome being implemented, which is to nobody's advantage. You'll notice that the reformatting hasn't removed a single letter of what you or anyone else wrote, so everything you contributed to the discussion is still there. Nobody is making any "threats", either. The discussion is about the merits of this particular article (not Villand himself, who I'm sure was a perfectly lovely gentleman) versus the policies which exist governing articles here. It may be of use to read WP:OWN on this point, too, since the discussion isn't about your merits, either. The deadline for an AfD is usually in the neighbourhood of 7 days, but you'll note that this one has been "relisted" as there wasn't a clear consensus earlier, so that gives everyone another 7 days or so.

4) I've given you the general overview of what a third-party/acceptable source would be earlier. If you have further queries on this point, I'd suggest that's a good question to move to my User Talk page, and I'll do my best to assist there.

5) As indicated above, the state of another article really doesn't have much bearing on whether this one should be deleted or kept. That said, Amundsen's page indicates (and, as far as I can read the Norwegian sources, cites a source confirming this - at least, he's second in the list of members of his party) that he was the deputy leader of a major political party in Norway, as well as simply being elected to Stortinget. Generally speaking, there is a standard which says that elected representatives at a national level - to say nothing of leaders and deputy-leaders of national political parties - in any country are going to be notable.

6) It could be an idea, but that won't necessarily address the issues here. To return to notability, the article can be as long as a small Russian novel and still get deleted if the subject doesn't demonstrate notability. Conversely, it can be one simple sentence and demonstrate tonnes of notability. That's why comparison between "this article I want kept" and "that article which isn't too great" is never an exact science. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to BigHaz: I like your information, and the tone in it, very much. I feel calmness in it, taking time to explain, and that avoids adrenaline in me to stress, to avoid deletion, to keep where I am working at. I would like to start discussing on your talk page about this, when you have found this comment and commented on it. The most important for me about what you explained is that I should keep a page as a draft till all is ready. I did not find the button for keeping it as a draft, so, I saved it, and on that moment it is published, obviously. I would like to make it a draft, now, to have the time to add all I need, because it needs a lot of time to get answers. Maybe some people are on a holiday, universities have many departments, and since it was public, I felt the stress growing. Reading the warnings for deletion created fear, and even more stress. This could have been avoided if I would have known how to save a page into a draft, to work at it behind the screens, that you control it, and when you have read and agreed with what is there, to publish it. This feels great for me. Thanks in advance. Greetings to Australia. DutchColours (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond on your Talk page, since we're probably moving away from the topic at hand, but to what I hope will be a more fruitful one. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean any disrespect by use of the term "a cool guy"; I only meant to say that it appears he had lived an admirable life and I would like to learn more about him. Nonetheless there can't be a Wikipedia article without substantial sources independent of the subject. CapitalSasha ~ talk 17:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CapitalSasha Of course you do not disrespect him, but some words do not fit within a certain atmosphere. There is also a difference in using words by older people, and the younger generation. It is a matter of awareness. Some words just do not fit everywhere. DutchColours (talk) 10:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New updates, October 24, 2017:

I, the creator of the article "Per Villand" have added yesterday new references in "Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis". These are third party sources.
I am emailing intensively with Terje Johansen from the University of Tromsø, who was working together with Per Villand. He is cooperating with me in finding third party sources for his Cand.Scient degree and his Dr. Scient. degree. Problem is that the email address of Professor Terje Traavik (University of Tromsø) is not working, and therefore Terje Johansen of the UiT forwards my email for Professor Terje Traavik to him. Terje Traavik was Per Villand's supervisor. Professor Odd-Arne Olsen of the NMBU university has not answered my emails yet, and Terje Johansen is therefore also contacting him about Per Villand, and for third party sources. Waiting for an answer from the Michigan State University, USA. Per Villand worked there and it seems that all the official third party links are not accepted as okay. So: I work very intensively at it.
I have contacted Sigmund Krøve-Velle from the Hallingdólen newspaper about the book, he mentions in his article. Waiting for his email back. I have called the library in Geilo about the book, and wrote an email after the telephone call, for exact information, and questions. As soon as possible I am back here to update the progress of the page.
I am in a debate with user BigHaz (Schreit mich an) about this page on my own talk page to learn more about deleting, drafts, and how to keep a draft, and how to avoid deleting. DutchColours (talk) 10:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I probably wouldn't use the word "Debate" for the interaction we're having - certainly not at the moment, and hopefully not ever! But I'm definitely glad to see that you've taken me up on the offer of assistance. All these years under my belt must be useful for something. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know what I mean.... DutchColours (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have got an email from Terje Johansen, UiT, with a PDF file, an official statement of the University, a confirmation that Per Villand has completed the degree Candidate Scientiarum on January 1, 1990, department medical biology. It is undersigned and has a stamp. There is the official logo of the UiT. I can upload this file in Wikimedia Commons and refer to it from the article-page. I wait for the agreement of the university. Obviously there is no other way to make it more official, since I had added already a link, a reference, but this was not accepted by user Geschichte. The same procedure has started about Per Villand's Dr. Scientiarum degree. We do not have more possibilities left to prove this. Did not get an email from MSU in USA. DutchColours (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references to "Umeå university, Sweden": the links direct to official papers, when checking the first link: (US National Library of Medicine) search for the link "Author information", click on it: then opens a screen with this information: Department of Plant Physiology, Umeå University, S-901 87 Umeå, Sweden For the full list of Per Villand: Click on Per Villand, then opens this page. DutchColours (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd reference is from PubMed as well. Title: Carbon dioxide and light regulation of promoters controlling the expression of mitochondrial carbonic anhydrase in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. When there, on that page, one can see the name Per Villand, and a number 1 next to the name, and: "Author information". Click on it. then opens a small screen with the text: Department of Plant Physiology, Umeâ University, 901 87 Umeâ, Sweden. Which proves that Per Villand worked there. Improved a reference (Carnegie Institution for Science).DutchColours (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added a link to Per Villand's 300 pages book: "Søre Villand og Raggsteindalen 1889-2005 : slekta, garden og turisthytta", which is available in the library of Geilo, Hol Kommune, Norway. DutchColours (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Updates, October 25, 2017

Got information from the MSU university US:
Hello, Could you provide the failed email address used to try and reach MSU Human Resources? Here is their official contact information as listed on 'hr.msu.edu':
Email = [email protected]
Office Phone = 800-353-4434 (Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EDT)
Since Per Villand was a biologist at MSU you could try and speak with Biological Sciences program using this contact form:
>> https://biosci.natsci.msu.edu/about/contact/
Biological Sciences is also part of the larger College of Natural Science, so another avenue is to contact them. Here is a link to their contact page:
>> https://natsci.msu.edu/about/contact/
Phone = (517) 355-4470
Beyond that I have no other resources to offer; MSU employee records are maintained either by their respective departments or by our central HR office.
Thanks,
MSU IT Service Desk DutchColours (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to work with this MSU email proposal today. Hope to have got the right reference at the end of the day, or tomorrow. DutchColours (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The email has been sent. Got two PDF's with confirmations. 1) Candidatus Scientiarum / University of Tromsø 2) Doctor Scientiarum / Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), these are uploaded in Wikimedia Commons and used as a reference. These PDF's were sent by Terje Johansen, University of Tromsø. Email for verification: [email protected] Both PDF's contain names and email addresses, telephone numbers, and can be used to check.

Was in the library of Geilo (Hol municipality) and they have indeed the book and the DVD. There are references added to this library, via a link. DutchColours (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

On this moment, the evening of October 25, 2017, there is only 1 reference not complete. This reference is the Michigan State University, USA, and this will be filled in as soon the email is in my inbox. DutchColours (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

DutchColours, I feel that there is some miscommunication going on regarding reason for the need for sources. The point is not about the verifiability of the information on the article, it's about the notability of the individual in question. CapitalSasha ~ talk 03:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove all words, that are not controllable. DutchColours (talk) 08:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly not the point. Wikipedia doesn't contain articles about all information that can possibly be verified -- we only include articles when enough notice has been taken by reliable sources to establish that the subject is generally notable and thus of interest to potential readers. Your goal should not be to dig up verifications of every minute claim made in the article -- rather we need to find that notice has been taken of this individual by reliable sources outside of Wikipedia to the point that the general notability guideline has been met. CapitalSasha ~ talk 18:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understood in the conversation on my own talk page, opened by BigHaz title=User_talk:DutchColours&action=edit&section=13 more about the notability. Question: can you explain me, dear CapitalSasha the notability of Asle Amundsen? For the full discussion about this I copy here what is written on the opened discussion section on my talk page: .........................I see your point as well. And therefore again: how can you defend the existence of the page Asle Amundsen. WHAT is the notability of that? Being an invisible little politician somewhere? What is his contribution to the world? He is an unknown Norwegian politician. What is interesting about this one for the world? I would like to know you answer. About the page with ALS patients: I know that this exists, I have already added Per Villand there a week ago. What you said yesterday: "Don't give up!"...: I gave up already, I have lost my appetite, the energy, the heart, the spirit, because it is insane how huge the constant attacks and in my opinion unfair argumentations are. I am working now anyway with it. I am searching for the name of the instrument, connected with Per Villand's head, that he used to handle the keyboard of the computer, to write with this tool, not with his hands: these were paralysed, not with his toes, these were paralysed, Per Villand was for 99% paralysed, lame. With that 1% that still was not paralysed he was writing on his computer, via that instrument, and I am finding out how that worked, and when I know I will name that instrument exactly and explain it. Note: with this instrument he created even a book (does not matter if it isn't interesting for the modern world that is coming to it's end, as the Hopi Prophecy is foretelling and what we are witnessing more and more because of the climate change and the decadence everywhere), he could contribute to the human world, he has even offered his entire body to science, in fact to humanity, to conquer, battle this disease, so, his life had not become meaningless, and that is, in such a circumstance, a notability for all humans, who are in different but also in future-less circumstances. Question: would that page be notable for a Norwegian version of wikipedia, the Bokmål version? If so: again, why this Asle Amundsen got an English version? WHAT is his meaning for the world, the English language world of Wikipedia? Wasn't it enough that this page was there in Bokmål? This is utterly bitter to notice................... (end quoting) .........

The term notability is not exact, even Wikipedia cannot name it exact, it is an "about", approximately, a vague term, it is a philosophical term, not able to become exact ever. On a university this would belong in the Gamma section, not Alpha as mathematics are. Mathematicians want everything to be proved by exact numbers, and because Alpha scientists are working with numbers and formulas, exact in that way (mostly, because economy is not an exact science!), they assume without realising that they are not per definition exact, because they work mostly with numbers, and exact. This is self-deception. In this case, about notability, it is IMPOSSiBLE to be exact, to be "Alpha". Sasha, you are an alpha scientist, and here you judge, analyse my work, while using not exact formulas. If there are, these can be compared with all what is related with the term quantum physics, because they are intertwined with the one who researches the subject. Therefore it is impossible to filter personal views from notability. With this I have tried to explain how subjective and not objective you are, dear Sasha, because again: Asle Amundsen is there, in Wikipedia, and there are many more, with the same shallow or an even lacking notability. .............

In the past the notables (high notability level) in a country, city or village were those who achieved a lot within the values of that time. Common people were not notable because they were not high enough in that hierarchic power system, a power-pyramid. In the time we live in, a lot of the past is now seen with other eyes, eyes with a deepened awareness, and therefore lots of so-called common people, without notability, are seen now as not so common at all, and had in fact more notability than was seen in that time. While a lot of so-called notables, those who were/are accepted for their notability, were not notables at all, and if, below the zero level of notability. Discrimination because of wrong values born out of narrow minded indoctrinating media and other power-systems, is very difficult to dismantle.

As long the Asle Amundsen article (what a term for two sentences) exists, I am allowed to consider the deletion of the Per Villand article can be categorised as (though not intended) discrimination, because of unseen (the awareness does not see it) values and unseen high levels of notability. There is hardly any clear coaching this person, me, to be able to work with some exact rules, because these exact (!!) rules do not exist, and therefore the policy is so vague that it took all the weeks that this discussion exists, to try to make Wikipedia aware of this problem. And I fail in it.

My energy is totally gone, I am tired, so immense tired and so deeply disappointed. This is an insane discussion between a 69 years old woman against a wall of scientists, who want me to be exact while they are not exact themselves, even not able with the best will in the world to be exact. The deletion of the article is therefore based on vague terms, and not any scientist in the world can make this a fair play. I am in Wikipedia court, with not any lawyer to defend me. In exact words: I have not any chance.

To think about for all: in how far in depth the popularity level, the being accepted in the society, even worldwide, as a star, a successful person, in sport, music, business, name it, who won gold or lots of money, time to be on TV and other media, or having a title that internationally is accepted as notable, so again, how deeply the popularity level is intertwined in wikipedia with the term notability? If this is the case, then it is time for a more efficient policy: before wikipedia users want to start an article, it should be checked by a commission of a filter, if this has enough credits to be accepted as notable. This avoids loads of hours as loss of time.

It proves not to be efficient at all only to mention what is NOT accepted, not good, not this not that. Like: The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. Please help to establish notability by citing reliable secondary sources (I DID) that are independent of the topic (I DID) and provide significant coverage of it beyond its mere trivial mention (I DID). If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. Find sources: "Per Villand" – news (I DID)· newspapers (I DID) · books (I DID) · scholar (I DID) JSTOR (October 2017) The one who arrived after JSTOR was Geschichte and turned the page into "delete". All his arguments are battled, but still one finds stones to throw with.

A way to what it has to be exactly is to offer help, by showing the way, the right direction, by being exact oneself as a Wikipedia supervisor. After I did ALL what was asked, there is STILL not enough notability?? WHY there should be a five hours lasting documentary about somebody who is not notable? In my opinion there is a lack of common sense here.DutchColours (talk) 09:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Keep, per educational value of the article in raising awareness about people with ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease, and to uphold the humanitarian and ethical mission of Wikipedia as a community-generated compendium of knowledge. Since the person in question represents a vulnerable population of people with disabilities, the criterion of notability cannot be applied in the same way as with regular populations. This case presents a notable example of coping with an incurable disease and aiding medical professionals to better understand it. Furhtemore, the person's scientific accomplishments as a molecular biologist, including publications (Google Scholar; VIAF) and patents (Patents) are worthy to mention. --Taterian (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have checked the links offered by Taterian and created a new paragraph: Scientific accomplishments. Changed the paragraph title "Literature and Film" into "Literature and Visual Education"

Have seen the page about Jason Becker. This page tells me that he is still alive. So: his ALS disease is lesser aggressive developing as Per Villand's ALS. I notice that Becker has a more spectacular profession, concerning popularity, populism, etc.: he is a heavy metal composer. There are computer programs to compose. I know this because my own son is a composer. One can compose on a chair. There are no computer programs to create patents about research in molecular biology: a molecular biologist "composes" his compositions in a lab. The popularity of a micro biologist is, I am sure, almost zero, because there are no fans, only doctors are their fans, and they are too busy to be in the media, on YouTube, Instagram, Twitter. It seems that Per Villand's page unfortunately has been checked and judged by Wikipedia users that have not any, at least not enough, affinity with biology, neither with ALS, not any, or hardly any insight in the disease, in being disabled, and in what is ethical within this concept, what belongs to awareness and showing respect. Also from out of the point of view that disabled people are already discriminated, and yes, here in Wikipedia as well. Except by user Taterian. Especially user Geschichte is respectless, as I wrote, he even uses the term subject when it is about a human being. User Capital Sasha has proved to be not so exact as is so highly needed here. But she is consequent in rejecting the notability of Per Villand, without being informed about the heaviness of a the disease, that obviously seems to be different from the one patient and the other. Discrimination does not belong in Wikipedia, and therefore one must judge with an eye for differences, and value. Values are not exact, these are related with the present or not present awareness of the one who judges, and therefore Wikipedia users who judge can (while being wrong, not enough developed in awareness) contribute to wrong decisions about pages. This is a serious mistake in the system Wikipedia uses for users to be able to judge about notability. Users who have the possibility to judge and delete pages should have an awareness check before they get the permission. Awareness goes far beyond rational intelligence. Even professors can have a total absence of awareness. And here in wikipedia one can add everything on the profile with only a nickname, a user name, and not any proof about what is written there about their education. Also this is utterly dangerous for the development of Wikipedia. Yes, I have my full name there, and websites. It should be like in Airb&b: a passport check, that the account is verified. DutchColours (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added It might be helpful to refocus the discussion on the contents of the article in order not to slide into WP:AADD. There are issues that require attention according to WP:MOS as explicated in H:TMM. Specifically, the article would benefit from:

Being brought in line with similar articles in the Category:Molecular biologists, i.e., structure, infobox scientist, etc.
The day of birth and the day of death are both October 15, which may raise questions; an explanation might be helpful in the section dealing with later life.
Using images as visual aides and eliminating repetition, e.g., File:Farms in Hovet.jpg appears to be sufficient to illustrate the place of birth.
Making sure that images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons meet the requirements of free content by providing OTRS permissions when needed (see Commons:OTRS), because non-free files are subject to deletion; or re-uploading essential images to Wikipedia only following WP:NFC, WP:WPFU and supplying uploaded images with fair use tags provided at Category:Non-free use rationale templates, Category:Wikipedia non-free content.
Eliminating extra spaces between sections.
Reviewing categories and leaving only specific categories, such as: Category:People from Hol, Category:1963 births, Category:2007 deaths, Category:Deaths from motor neuron disease, Category:Norwegian people with disabilities and adding new, such as Category:Molecular biologists.
Adding {{Authority control}} template. --Taterian (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taterian thank you! I did all you advised. About the licenses: I have asked, before uploading in Wikimedia Commons, all who have sent me papers, photos, for permission to upload according to the Wikipedia licenses for sharing, etc. I got their permission. Question 1: please check the infobox scientist. I am not sure all is filled in on the right place. Never did this before. Question 2: In the category Molecular biologists the name Per Villand is categorized under P, not V. It should be V. Don't know how to change that. DutchColours (talk) 09:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on user's talk page. --Taterian (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the deletion discussion, I think that the documentary about Per Villand is key to establishing notability: I would say the article should be kept on the basis of that. CapitalSasha ~ talk 21:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twiztid Presents: Year Of The Sword[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Pre-emptive article so little coverage has been given, suggesting that its only purpose is to advertise the album. DrStrauss talk 22:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft move to draftspace until it receives reviews in reliable sources which will be nearer or after it's release. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most artists seem notable, and I assume likely to get RS reviews and covereage. Keep or move to draftspace as above? Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Entirely speculative and without sources required for GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the WP:GNG. Not worth sending to draftspace when its little more than a tracklist sourced to Itunes and a non-RS fansite. Sergecross73 msg me 14:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree that it doesn't meet the inclusion criteria, and that it is very unlikely to do so, so moving to draft does not make sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrique Jarrett[edit]

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of an IP. The following message was posted at WP:HD:

I don't know where to go to ask someone to propose an article for deletion. I came across the article for football player Tyrique Jarrett and it seems clear that he doesn't qualify for notability. He was not drafted in the 2017 NFL Draft, is currently on the practice squad of a team, and has never played in a game. WP:NGRIDIRON says playing in at least one regular or postseason game is required to establish notability. He played on a college team but, per WP:NCOLLATH, he's clearly not notable for that. The only sources in the article are mostly just some general roster listings and media guides from his college and NFL teams. I know there are a bunch of different reasons and ways to propose deleting an article but I have no idea which route is best, and the process is too complex for me to do anyway. I thought maybe I should ask about his at a particular board but I didn't know if it should be one with expertise about the NFL, sports in general, BLPs, or some other place. I just want someone to look at the article to see if they agree this person is not notable and then propose it for deletion if they agree with me. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I am neutral. Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NGRIDIRON. [17] WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was looking for evidence that he played in at least one game. How do I withdraw this nomination? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 00:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can just state here that you've withdrawn it. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I just did haha. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maineartists (talk • contribs) 18:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Crane[edit]

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

BLP non-notable requirements for WP:MUSICBIO Maineartists (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is a clear WP:CIO with this article. Maineartists (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO via coverage in The New York Times ([18], [19]), New York Daily News ([20]), Rapport ([21]), Cadence ([22]), Jazz Times ([23]), BroadwayWorld ([24]), and Allmusic ([25], [26], [27], [28]). --Michig (talk) 09:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Really? and that's all it really takes these days for inclusion at WP? an article that has only a lede and no content; which was started and continually monitored by the subject themselves, and the only notability claims are a Ponzi scheme and selling a piano? I'm sure all the countless musicians that have had 40 plus year careers that have been mentioned in newspapers yet rejected articles in WP for "non-notable" reasons, will be interested in this support. A quick google search of the name hardly even brings anything up for first hits except WP and Facebook. If this is a "keep", this article fails in all other aspects. Maineartists (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "an article that has only a lede and no content; which was started and continually monitored by the subject themselves, and the only notability claims are a Ponzi scheme and selling a piano?" - you are discussing the article, not the notability of the subject. We're not here to assess the quality of the article. The subject is notable. --Michig (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I respectfully disagree. Maineartists (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, hi Maineartists, please have a look at WP:CONTN - "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article.", also, i'm curious about your comment about "the countless musicians that have had 40 plus year careers that have been mentioned in newspapers yet rejected articles in WP for "non-notable" reasons", please leave a list of these musos on my talkpage (with news sources if possible) and i'll have a look at them for possible wikiarticles, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least two references provided above meet the criteria for establishing notability (NYT, NY Daily News, Broadway World). -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This is wonderful. I'm actually quite pleased that this AfD discussion is headed toward a consensus that I will be able to reference in the future. It's refreshing to hear the simple defense that I have been lead to refute by certain editors disqualifying on the very grounds you are now championing. Thanks. I appreciate your input. Maineartists (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sure your sarcasm sounded better when you moved your lips while typing. Not appreciated here though. Your AfD would progress better if you made your arguments based on policy/guidelines. For example, what parts of WP:MUSIC do you believe this article fails? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Maineartists:, what you should learn from this AfD is that a deletion argument is not based on the lack of references in the article, it is based on the lack of articles in newspapers, etc that COULD be used as references. If you have seen articles fail at AfD it is likely because such newspaper articles could not be found, or they only mentioned the subject in passing, whereas the articles that Michig posted above are actually ABOUT the subject. Having said that, I have seen many deletionist editors put up articles for deletion that have plenty of valid references, so I do hear you. Robman94 (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not arguing at all. There are dozens of nightclub / lounge singers that have more coverage than articles from 1989, 1990 and 1997 or notable within their fields for selling a piano and are on sites that are generated by reviewing sign-in users and not considered reliable (Broadway World / Allmusic) on WP for musicians. I'm just content with the fact that so many editors are voicing their support. Glad to see it. As I said, will reference this discussion when supporting others. Obviously, I should not have proposed this for an AfD. My mistake. Thanks again. Maineartists (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you do try referencing this AfD, or the presence of other articles, folks will likely cite WP:OTHERSTUFF in response. As for this AfD, if you have changed your mind, you're welcome to withdraw it in order for it to close. Robman94 (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the articles that Michig found. The OP is correct about the article having a COI problem though, as it does appear that the subject has done most of the editing. Robman94 (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted. Consensus is clear. No prejudice against future creation of a list article to which all such titles can be redirected, if properly sourced. bd2412 T 15:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VC C23 Company[edit]

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

This 30-man Viet Cong unit is unreferenced and doesn't seem to have accomplished anything particularly notable. I see one passing mention in this book. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for essentially the same reasons:

According to its article, VC C41 fought in the Battle of Binh Ba, but is not mentioned there.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Company is well below the threshold in WP:MILUNIT. Unless there is significant sourcing on these companies (which does not seem to be the case), they should not have a stand-alone entry - the parent formation might merit inclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very few companies would justify an article, with the obvious exception of Easy Company from Band of Brothers. Generally, battalions yes, companies no. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Companies only with significant importance or that played a major role in some war are acceptable to have an article. Also this article hardly has any references to establish the subject's notability, fails WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subjects fails MILUNIT and GNG. I see no sense in keeping standalone articles for these units. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Australian official history of the Australian Army's role in South Vietnam has lots of material on the Viet Cong local forces in Phuoc Tuy Province, and other works have also covered them (including, from memory, a Vietnamese official history - though it may not be a RS), so an article on the topic would be highly viable. I agree though that the individual companies are unlikely to be notable. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wonder if there is a parent article that the information on the VC companies could be merged to. Individually, I agree they probably don't warrant stand alone articles, but the overarching topic is notable, IMO. I found this article: Viet Cong and PAVN strategy, organization and structure, but it wouldn't seem an appropriate merge target. I wonder about List of Viet Cong Local Force companies ... thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MILUNIT and fails WP:GNG. Created seven years ago and still remain without even single unreliable source –Ammarpad (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Already deleted Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete WP:G11 and salt. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo de Castro Tibana[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and article has been deleted several times:

Speedy deleted as Marcelo Tibana in Novembre 2016
Deleted as The Poet from Omaezaki after AfD in December 2016
Marcelo D'Castro Tibana AfD in April 2017
Draft:Marcelo Tibana was declined twice in April and May 2017.

Habertix (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and the most recent Afd was closed WP:G4. Perhaps this one can be too. Speedy delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also requesting that he be blocked as a promotion-only account. Surely we're not going to allow this to continue indefinitely? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Guarino, Mark (2014-09-12). "Chicago priest 'receives death threats' after gun control rally outside store". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2017-10-22.

[2] Davey, Monica (2013). "Strict Gun Laws in Chicago Can't Stem Fatal Shots". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-10-22.

[3] Thompson, Cheryl W. (2010-11-22). "The story of two guns that killed police officers". ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2017-10-22.

[4] Holmes, Evelyn (2015-06-06). "Protesters take aim at 'bad apple' gun dealers at Chuck's Gun Shop in Riverdale". ABC7 Chicago. Retrieved 2017-10-22.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]