Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 May	17 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Procedural close. This AfD was created some four years ago and never properly transcluded to a logpage. The nomination statement appears to be arguing for the article to be kept, and the article still exists, making the existence of the AfD of questionable utility. (non-admin closure) jp×g 04:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chicuma[edit]

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

Are we going to remove a town in https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Chicuma,+Angola/@-13.4292739,14.8368504,13126m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x1bba1848f8d1d357:0xf350ef5c8da5c702!8m2!3d-13.42936!4d14.87187?

Kindly goole it. I got 68,400 search result for https://www.google.com/search?q=Chicuma+angola&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab. ????? Shevonsilva

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fabian Massah[edit]

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

BLP with no visible verifiable references from reliable sources. Contested BLP PROD. It may be an autobiography or written by one or more employees of the subject's production company Endorphine Production. — Jeff G. ツ 23:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2018 (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. Clear consensus that this is promotional and lacks demonstrated notability. ~ mazca ^talk 01:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Links[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:CORP. Current sourcing is extremely weak. A search didn't come up with anything other than press releases. Rusf10 (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Obvious spam and has been since it was created 9 years (!!!) ago. Jytdog (talk) 05:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- clearly promotional. Reyk _YO! 11:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable and promotional Tazerdadog (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero indications of notabilty, totally promotional, fails WP:SPIP, GNG and WP:NCORP. On a related note, I've also nominated the founder João Carreira article for deletion also. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:01, 23 May 2018 (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 Wartburg College. Mz7 (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Outfly[edit]

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

Was nominated previously for deletion in 2008, as it didn't satisfy WP:N. Taking a look at what's here now as a result of a recreation, there is still no notability to the topic. Other than the one local news source, all other sources in the article are primary and I can't find anything else reliable when searching. Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 23:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wartburg College entirely local event that has no outside notability. Could be summarized in a single sentence on the school's article if it is somewhat notable, but does not need such details. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wartburg College - plausible search term, but not notable. PhilKnight (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2018 (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. ~ mazca ^talk 01:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KISI[edit]

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

A directory-like listing for an early-stage tech startup. Significant RS coverage not found. Sources are hyper-local, WP:SPIP and / or routine funding news. Has raised $1.5M in venture funding which is a strong indicator that it's WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia entry. A different version of the article has been previously deleted via PROD. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article about a company supported by typical start-up coverage about the firm's aspirations and funding. There is a recent review of their product [1] but neither that nor anything else foudn in searches indicates that the firm has achieved notability. AllyD (talk) 07:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This recent market report from 2017 lists the company among Cisco, Microsoft. All other companies in the report have pages, why not this one [2]? B3rn1b01 17:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)— B3rn1b01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Response Not only does the report appear to fail as a reliable source, it definitely fails the higher standard for establishing notabilty. See below. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete typical thin page for a company abusing WP for promotion. Not a WP article. Fails WP:NCORP Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. With respect to the comment above by B3rn1b01 (talk · contribs), PR Newswire pieces are press releases and invalid for assessing notability. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF that exists on Wikipedia has no bearing on this article. Bottom line, notability for KISI has not been established. Per WP:CORPDEPTH, we need in-depth coverage of the company from reliable sources that are independent of the company. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although a Keep !voter above points to this report by "ReportLinker", there is nothing to indicate who wrote the report and Reportlinker, the company, does not attribute either itself, or a reputable research company, as authors of the piece. As such, based on what I can find, it cannot be considered reliable much less as meeting the criteria for establishing notability. In fact, nothing in the article provides any reasons or indications as to notability. Another run-of-the-mill early-stage technology company. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . This is the classic attitude of startups thinking they can gain notability by using Wikipedia as a B2B platform. WP:NOTDIR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2018 (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. G3 hoax, and salted Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Carter High School[edit]

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

Looks like a hoax. School not found using search. School not listed in Dallas Independent School District#Former secondary schools. Creation user has vandalism in history. Looks like this user created hoax Carter High School University Park. Bamyers99 (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Bamyers99 (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's a hoax. I've updated the Carter disambiguation page as well. Good catch! SportingFlyer talk 00:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G3. Can't find anything on it, and looking at the revision history... in this revision the creator copied the infobox of the actually existing Highland Park High School (University Park, Texas) to this article, changing only a few of the parameters. To this day the article still shows the same publication as that school. Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 00:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting also: in this revision of Template:Dallas ISD, the creator modified it to refer to this school as "Carter University Park". This is similar to the name of the Carter High School University Park article that, as mentioned above, he created and was deleted as a hoax. This article was created ~12 days after the other page was deleted as a hoax. Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 00:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:49, 17 May 2018 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Susheel Jangira[edit]

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

Actors/models are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:ACTORBIO. Apparently the subject fails to meet ACTORBIO because she has acted in some non-notable movies with no major role. Also she lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources therefore fails to meet basic GNG. Saqib (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, incoherent article with a lack of demonstrated notability from reliable sources. ~ mazca ^talk 01:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Meher Baba. Consensus that, despite the notability of the parent topic, there is insufficient evidence as to the notability of this fund. Notability is not inherited from a notable parent topic, and there appears to be insufficient coverage of the fund specifically. ~ mazca ^talk 01:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar Meher Baba Trust[edit]

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

Completely non-notable fund. It is hard, at first glance, to see how such a financial instrument could meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, as, by their nature, they tend towards the micro and the confidential. This fund has made insufficient impact culturally in its own right to have garnered the necessary in-depth or persistence of coverage in reliable sources to warrant inclusion. Regardless of the creator—and the wishes of the creator—this has no impact on WP:ORGSIG or WP:INHERITORG. The topic has received minimal coverage, except for trivial mentions, generally. It has received even less (by a massive margin) in the far more stringent news reportage. Suffice, then of course to say, that the literature (with the exception of dedications, listed mentions, and WP:SPS) is equally sparse. Ultimately, there in insufficient coverage for the Trust to pass the very basic requirements of WP:ORGCRIT. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 11:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--What the nom said.I fail to find any non-trivial coverage in Indian newspapers.And, call me skeptical but I'm beginning to smell a walled garden around Meher Baba.......It seems that having talk-page-stalkers always comes with it's perks:) And, I need to learn to write the art of writing of such nomination statements.....~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a notable trust ~~and seemingly a deletion attempt which is a part of an attempt by editors to remove many of the Baba pages from Wikipedia's very good collection of articles on the subject.~~ As with the many other pages put under deletion threat in a swoop (and I'm not going to look for them all, but an attempt like this should result in all of the noms being removed because of clearly-communicated bias) I am sad to have to "defend" myself from labels and explain that I am not a member of a Baba cult, or any related organization, nor do I know anyone who is a member, but am a concerned editor who has happened to find this many-page attempt to purge Wikipedia of Baba related articles, something I haven't seen to this extent before. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: a perusal of WP:ASPERSIONS may be of profit; and WP:ILIKEIT too perhaps. My nomination is part of no crusade; if you think so, you will file at AN/I, or you will strike that portion of your comment. Thank you, —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to you personally, and my bad. I found this page after finding what is certainly a topic-purge attempt by another editor who has nominated probably a dozen or more related Baba pages as well as using language which clearly shows bias against the topic, and it was to that editor that my comments apply. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and fails WP:ORGSIG and WP:ORGDEPTH. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delete Fails the familiarity test. Delete it and other foreign nonprofit charitable organizations. Let's keep the American Wikipedia for America. Here are some other ones we could get rid of next: Category:Charities based in India. Changing my vote to keep, per the comments by Randy Kryn and Hoverfish below. Dazedbythebell (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct to think that your 'delete' reasoning is satire? This is of course not the American Wikipedia but the English Wikipedia, and India is it's second biggest user (the English Wikipedia is the main Wikipedia for India). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Considering this, obviously satire. But considering 3 out of 4 delete !voters are Indian, you're apparent accusation of Americans/Westerners deleting things they don't know about it seems unlikely, and deletion due to the policy based rationale given by Serial seems more likely, doesn't it? Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, user Dazedbythebell is being neutral in his ivotes on this vast field of deletion requests aimed at "nuking" Wikipedia's Meher Baba collection, and has made reasoned 'delete' ivotes among them. I just thought this one should be clarified, as a closer may take it as a real 'delete' ivote and not satire (and I'm really not sure which one it is). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, interesting. This one seems clearly satire though Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No my delete vote is not sarcasm, though my comment about deleting other Indian charities is. The fact is that I do not know how to find secondary sources to establish its notability for Wikipedia. So I am voting for deletion due to that. The reality is that it is a real Trust, and has a free school, free dispensary, free veterinary clinic for local farmers, free cataract clinic for the locals of the Ahmednagar area. But that is no substitute for independent sources. So by Wikipedia's criteria it really should be deleted, at least until someone more knowledgeable about sources can rewrite it at a later time. So my deletion vote is sincere. Dazedbythebell (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May I add a counter point here (without voting "keep"): This article is about the only central organization established by Meher Baba, the aims of which are limited to what the article says they are. So since we keep getting these notions that "here we have a cult" and that a Baba folloer might be in COI, ie paid by some organization to edit here, it is the ONLY article that makes it clear what this is organization is and what relation it has or doesn't have with Meher Baba's followers. They manage the pilgrimage site and all historical records, but they don't fund or sanction or have any responsibility for any groups of followers. So actually this information IS useful to the readers if they care to know how this "new religious works" in terms of central organization. Hoverfish Talk 22:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And Dazedbythebell, I did find a valid outside-the-group source (next point below) which I've added to the article. This source backs up quite a lot of information on the page, including that it exists and it owns and cares for Meher Baba's last home. This should be enough to assure the pages validity as an important page in Wikipedia's Baba collection. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source added to the article from the Asian Tribune of 5 July 2017. This source shows that the Trust is real, and not made up. That it exists and is prominent. And that it owns and cares for the last home that Meher Baba lived in. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Trust and a tiny description of what it does is mentioned in the Meher Baba article, both in the lead and under Legacy. So perhaps a redirect is appropriate. Not sure. The loss of this article will be a loss for Wikipedia, for as Hoverfish mentioned, this is THE Meher Baba organization in the world. However, as I said, I'm not aware of how to find sufficient third party sources (beside the one Kryn found) toat would satisfy a deletionist with a strong sense of personal mission. Dazedbythebell (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my above argument that this article helps the reader learn about the only existing Meher Baba organization and knowledge about it answers enquiries about what may be behind Baba followers, as well as to whether COI can apply here. Removing this information from Wikipedia simply leaves space for wild speculations. Given time, more RS may come to existence or simply detected. Remember please that RS are not limited to online material and we have limited access to what may well exist in print whether in India or elsewhere. Hoverfish Talk 14:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Meher Baba, where this is already discussed (in §Legacy). There's no independent notability to this trust at all; it is, literally, a legacy of Meher Baba. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:NOTINHERITED. Despite associations with a notable figure, the trust is not verifiably notable. No amount of kicking up dust will change that. Cesdeva ^(talk) 22:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NORG; notability is not inherited. No point in a redirect, as it would not be a suitable search term. Nothing to preserve here. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and per WP:NOTINHERITED; just not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2018 (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Milton McGrath[edit]

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

Non-notable mayor. 13 of the references come from his Orlando Sentinel obituary, which appears to be a simple WP:MILL obituary. All other sources are either primary (election results), unreliable (Ancient Faces) or only mention him in passing (his primary challenge only gets him a name drop.) Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 20:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable and fails GNG. Kierzek (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. I'll also point out that the Orlando obituary is a paid one and fails WP:RS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Melbourne FL is not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NPOL just for existing as mayors, but the article is not referenced well enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu: apart from his obituary (which is not a notability clincher in and of itself, since every mayor of everywhere would be routinely expected to get an obituary in the local newspaper upon their death), the only other references here are primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of political primary races he didn't win (but being a candidate in a primary is not a notability criterion either.) If he could be shown as the subject of much more substantive coverage than this, then things might be different — but the sourcing shown here isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2018 (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. The subject appears to have received sufficient coverage that would have, under many circumstances, demonstrated notability - but there appears to be a significant and unresolved disagreement as to the overall acceptability of interviews performed by third parties in terms of demonstrating notability. The marginal majority opinions, and superficially significant role the subject has seems to make a default to keep reasonable, though I would encourage more indisputable sourcing. ~ mazca ^talk 01:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Cowan[edit]

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

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as the organizational president, but not the public leader, of a political party. This is a role that could potentially get her into Wikipedia if she could be sourced over WP:GNG for it, but not one that hands her an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing if the sourcing isn't up to snuff -- but there's only one reference being cited here, which is a start toward getting her over GNG but is not enough to carry her over the finish line all by itself. If a person doesn't have an automatic pass of any SNG (e.g. by actually serving in the House of Commons as an actual elected MP), then they need considerably more than just one source to pass the "notable because media coverage exists" test. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, but nothing here is good enough as written to get her in the door. Bearcat (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although this article does not have enough references, a Google News search brings up many references to her. This article just needs to be improved with more content and references. Peter303x (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The notability test is not whether her existence gets namechecked by "references to her" in articles about other things. The notability test requires sources in which she is the subject of the coverage, and a Google News search does not bring up anywhere near enough sources that clear that bar. Bearcat (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is the current president of not just of any organization but the Liberal Party of Canada, which holds the majority of seats in one chamber of the national parliament and is also the party of the current prime minster Justin Trudeau. I agree with the nominator that surprisingly there is not that much individual coverage about her. However, I found the following sources relatively fast: 1 2 3 This should make her pass WP:GNG. - wikitigresito (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no role that a person can hold that is so "inherently" notable that she's exempted from having to be the subject of enough media coverage to pass WP:GNG for the holding of that role. But the sources you've shown are not getting her there: #3 is a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself, which is not a notability-assisting source; #2 mentions her name in the process of being primarily about something else, which is not a notability-assisting source; and while #1 does count for more than the other two, it doesn't magically count for enough all by itself as the article's only counting-for-anything source: she has to be the subject of multiple sources, not just the subject of one and then glancingly namechecked in others, to clear GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the keep votes above seem to assume notability, but all of the sources I can find on her are pretty run-of-the-mill (local woman running to be party leader, et cetera.) I think she could pass WP:GNG at some point but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer talk 20:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see her name mentioned quite often with a couple of sentences about her. Wasn't it possible to combine multiple sources counting as one, to establish notability? Also, I thought interviews could count, depending on the circumstances. wikitigresito (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it said that interviews don't count as far as notability, but I've never seen a link to any guidelines which say so. Lonehexagon (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews in which she's speaking about herself can be used for supplementary verification of stray facts after notability has already been covered off by sources written in the third person by third parties — but because they represent the subject speaking about herself, they can't be used as evidence of base notability in and of themselves if they're the best sources on offer. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added more info and sources to the article and I believe it now passes WP:GNG for significant coverage in secondary sources. For example, CBC Canada did an interview with her,[3] and there is significant coverage in The Chronicle Herald,[4] and The Hill Times.[5] Given that she was just elected President a few weeks ago, it seems she will only get more press as time goes on. I don't see any reason to delete this article at this time. Lonehexagon (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not evidence of notability in and of themselves. They're valid for additional verification of facts after notability has already been properly demonstrated by better sources — but they do not constitute evidence of notability in their own right, because they represent the subject speaking about herself and are thus subject to all of the same problems as self-published sources (i.e. the interviewee won't necessarily get factchecked if they lie about or misrepresent stuff.) Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you seem to equate interviews with primary sources which is not exactly the case, because interviews published on serious platforms are conducted by someone independent of the subject, i.e. they receive outside input and obviously false or misleading claims are likely to result in critical follow-up questions. However, I admit that in this case the interview is not that strong for establishing notability but I wouldn't say it does not count at all. What about my question regarding combining multiple sources to count as one? wikitigresito (talk) 05:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2018 (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. MER-C 14:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Khudairi[edit]

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

As with many publicists, she is quoted in a wide variety of media reports speaking on behalf of clients. However, outside of WP:ROUTINE coverage, she does not have the SIGCOV necessary to pass the WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of subject failing WP:GNG. FOB's not enough. -The Gnome (talk) 10:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Khudairi is a successful businesswoman with an interesting career that doesn't rise to Wikipedia's standards of notability. This is an encyclopedia, not a Who's Who of American business. Chisme (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2018 (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. Minimal assertion of notability, no arguments in favour of keeping. ~ mazca ^talk 01:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Clint Aranas[edit]

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

Articles does not meet criteria for WP:GNG or WP:POLOUTCOMES. Chetsford (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. SportingFlyer talk 00:25, 17 May 2018 (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. Page title fixed to a correct spelling. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chicurnu[edit]

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

A very recently created article on a "commune" in Angola. The sourcing is unacceptable; a link to a book on Amazon which has Wikipedia content, and a Russian-language page which has Wikipedia content. I cannot find any sources that verify this place exists, it does not show on Google Maps and there are no GPS coordinates. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki Sorry, I renamed it correctly:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicuma. The town is in in https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Chicuma,+Angola/@-13.4292739,14.8368504,13126m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x1bba1848f8d1d357:0xf350ef5c8da5c702!8m2!3d-13.42936!4d14.87187.

Kindly goole it. I got 68,400 search results for https://www.google.com/search?q=Chicuma+angola&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab.

Actually I removed the deletion tag as this is a clear misunderstanding and to save time. :)

Thanks for catching it. Portugese to English naming is a bit flacky. Shevonsilva

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Relevant and reasonable concerns over both the title and nature of content have been raised, but there is a general consensus to keep this article and content in general. This AfD should not be taken as an endorsement of the state of the current article, but some variant of it is generally accepted to be worthy of inclusion. ~ mazca ^talk 01:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Facilities on the Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)[edit]

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

Written like a travel guide and seems to be original research. Fails WP:GNG due to this. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page is obviously a sub-article spun-off from Mass_Rapid_Transit_(Singapore)#Facilities_and_services. If this seems like too much detail then we just merge back into the main article and so, per WP:PRESERVE, there is no case for deleting anything. As an example of a source which discusses station design in detail, see Urban Transformations: Transit Oriented Development. Andrew D. (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Keep - ~~The original article is a FA article, to avoid going to too much depth this is clearly warranted ,~~ however, I agree that the article needs to be resorted out - many maintenance tag. To nominator, WP:NOTGUIDE does not apply here as these are facilities. It cannot be violating WP:OR (so clearly) as sources are there. One more point, you don't fail WP:GNG based on WP:NOTGUIDE or WP:OR but rather in general , coverage of X in more than two, in depth, independent sources and one should be out of the region. For specific topics, there are more guidelines such as WP:AUTHOR / WP:NHOSPITALS and etc. Failing not guide can just remove the guide section. Failing OR can just be cited. I hope this clarifies. --Quek157 (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)strike off --Quek157 (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

"In addition, some stations have toilets in their paid area, including Bugis, Paya Lebar and Clementi. [citation needed]" - removed this paragraph, I agree this is nonsense which is clearly not true. Clementi station toilet is near the newly constructed exit, Paya Lebar EWL toilet is at outside station near to the ticket office CCL one is outside the paid area (although can jump through) as well as Bugis (where have such toilet) - I deliberately did this is to illustrate what should be done when facing OR / NOTGUIDE. (For this NOTGUIDE / OR). It is to discuss at talk page not haul it to Afd, ~~especially with a FA article spun off which is required or else FAC will fail.~~ I am really trying my personal best to WP:DONTBITE. --Quek157 (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)strike off , sorry I'm confused for a moment. Partially due to ani --Quek157 (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep its parent page is FA and hence it is required to have subpages for it to pass the summary style criteria. Also, constant with what is stated above, sections that fail WP:NOTGUIDE can be removed or converted to something that doesn't fail the criteria. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 23:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

: Just a note here the criteria is notability. a subject notability have nothing to do with what is written. if it is not notable there's nothing we write can make it notable. if a subject is notable, even one liner verified can be an article at stub. I think we are too caught up in GA reviews now --Quek157 (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, the notability is established for this article is in the WP:GNG as the subject doesn't have any other criteria. The straits times article cited is national press independent. The first few sources are really archive news. sorry it is only available in Singapore not Colorado but I see is all from straits times too. there are 4 2 (updated --Quek157 (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC) as someone amalgamated the sources) articles. to be strict it is one source. The business times source is the second one. i will say other sources are not reliable as press releases are primary and blogs are no no .for this WP:GNG is met hence this is not a case of WP:AVOIDSPLIT. I am sorry that I'm too carried away with the ani as well as ga review that I am not arguing as what Afd needs. As a afc submission reviewer I need to be clearer here. Just to add I will not hesitate to suggest delete or merge a non notable page to one that is notable even if this will make the page lose it's FA status. The editors simply need to be more concise then.Quek157 (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC) updated --Quek157 (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. R22-3877 (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. R22-3877 (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)#Facilities and services. Some of the content is of importance to the SMRT and can be placed there, but a lot of it isn't. We don't really need a whole article dedicated to facilties. Ajf773 (talk) 06:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the title may not be the best, but based on what I mentioned, it still warrant a full article --Quek157 (talk) 10:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - with merge discussion on talkpage (I will insist those who voted merge / delete to participate - or else no more further AFD on this) .upon re-reading the page, the lead seems to be able to replicate on all MRT station pages in Singapore. Layouts are mentioned in all the stations, facilities seems repeated from the main MRT page, Passengers Information System is a mergeable part (uncited), BFA can just be merged, I now support the merger as per Ajf773. However, I will propose this be a redirect after merger being completed. The FA status of the article maybe in doubt but should not be consideration here. This can be notable, and the redirect will allow recreation once enough information is put in place. In addition, do ignore my remarks in small above, those are just ranting to the nominator as a form of coaching. I hope this settles the issues. Per Andrew Davidson, it may seem a lot of information, so merge may be the best to preserve these --Quek157 (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~modified per Quek157 (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)~~ - per Bearian take below --Quek157 (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep what is sourced, but cut out the cruft. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian:, cut out already, and nice to see another familiar name here, can you consider being a sysop again? --Quek157 (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Quek157: due to issues and stress IRL, I can't. Thank you anyway. Bearian (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:::@Bearian: welcomed. This is a 2005 page for AFD and good to see 2007 editors commenting. Anyway is created by Mailer Diablo. I don't know why is hauled to Afd when it is such an experienced user page --Quek157 (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that there is insufficient in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. ~ mazca ^talk 01:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On Being a Pagan[edit]

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

the book is not particularly notable. He didn't earn any prize, nor was reviewed by national media... NAH 16:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. NAH 09:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviewed in Le Monde des livres on 24 April 1981 under the heading "Dieux celtes contre Dieu chrétien". Discussed again in Le Monde on 29 May 1981. Qualifies notability guidelines. Vickakickan (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vickakickan: This review is of no use since it doesn't cover the book in depth. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 09:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, Harshrathod50. Which is more, Vickakickan, the article entitled "Dieux celtes et Dieu chrétien" is not a review, but a letter of Pierre de La Crau, a Neopagan druid, far-right activist and Holocaust denier... NAH 18:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Meets none of the criterias of WP:BK to have a standalone article. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 09:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above. In particular I'm not seeing any real claim to notability for the book, and I wasn't able to find substantial interest in it. Mangoe (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2018 (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. SOFTDELETE per no input from other users. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erkebek Abdulaev[edit]

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

Subject doesn't fit WP:BIO Rampion (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 19:54, 16 May 2018 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lock Stock and Barrel Records[edit]

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

Article on record label is largely serving as an un-referenced discography for the band that started it: Never the Bride. Information on releases is already available (with sources) at the band's article, plus the album and song articles for the release by Shirley Bassey. Otherwise the record label has achieved little or no independent notability in its own right, with only basic listings of its existence found. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 19:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2018 (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. Enigma^msg 03:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spectradyne LLC[edit]

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

Does not seem to pass WP:CORP, GNG, or other notability standards. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if kept, should be moved to Spectradyne per WP:NCCORP. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete obvious advertisement for the company. Jytdog (talk) 05:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:54, 23 May 2018 (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. Enigma^msg 02:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Crusher (Looney Tunes)[edit]

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

No sources and simply not a notable character. JDDJS (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Better fit for Wikia then Wikipedia, totally fancruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, and my own (admittedly, rather cursory) searching failed to find any good sources. Already on Wikia. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that the overall sourcing of this article does meet the notability guidelines. ~ mazca ^talk 01:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TAPinto[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, reliable sources used only have a trivial mention and a BEFORE search only brings up press releases. Rusf10 (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable independent in-depth sources are here (note: TAP => The Alternative Press, ie previous name) and here and here. TAPinto is what is called a "hyperlocal" news source, covering many (50+) communities in the important New Jersey and New York market. It came into prominence when many traditional local newspapers went out of business, laying off people, going belly up, and the ranks of local journalists have been decimated in the United States over the last decade according to MediaShift. TAPinto and Patch are what's left. TAPinto is an online, more cost-efficient replacement which fills an important void in local coverage, and it is often the only media for many towns. Further, larger, more traditional publications such as NJ.com, the Newark Star-Ledger and others all read TAPinto, often quote TAPinto stories, such as here and here and here and here and here and in countless other instances, that is, TAPinto plays a key role in local news. When Stephen Colbert interviewed Jerry Seinfeld in a NJ coffee house, TAPinto was the first to report it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but that's still pretty weak, its only two sources with in-depth coverage (I don't think that Street Fighter source can be consider reliable). And Stephen Colbert interviewing Jerry Seinfeld isn't exactly breaking news.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG per above sourcing. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG.Djflem (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No comment on whether a redirect somewhere would be appropriate, except that it should at least be mentioned in the target. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark S. Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies[edit]

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

Undergraduate department of a university. Whether sourced or not, university departments do not normally get their own page unless they are a major research facility. Without prejudice to redirecting to a parent article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As much as I, as a gay Canadian who tries pretty hard to get LGBT Canadian topics into Wikipedia, would like to be able to salvage this, I simply can't. As written, it's depending entirely on primary sources (either its own self-published content or the university it's directly affiliated with), and shows no evidence of reliable source coverage in media independent of it — and I can't find any stronger coverage either. Even on a ProQuest search, all I can find is a handful of glancing namechecks of its existence in articles where academics affiliated with it give soundbite to the media about something other than the centre itself — but it has to be the subject of coverage, not just have its name dropped in coverage of other things, to get over WP:GNG, and the kind of coverage it takes I just ain't finding. Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither gay nor Canadian so I hope this !vote will not be taken as part of the straight British surge to take over wikipedia!!! But in all seriousness I agree with my furry friend and the sources just do not stand up to GNG requirements. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to University of Toronto#Academics. I was almost a weak keep, but went with redirect based on gut instinct. Per User:Kudpung's comment above, I went to the University of Toronto article to see if a merge would make sense, and noticed that of the 18 different faculties listed there, 14 have their own articles, and even three autonomous schools have their own articles. I'm not sure what makes a research facility "major", but the norm in this case seems to be to have an article, rather than not having one. I did an extensive Google search, and besides numerous school name mentions related to staff and alumni, I found some minor coverage of the school and its awards program including [[6]], [[7]], [[8]], [[9]], [[10]], but it's not quite enough to get me to weak keep. The redirect will at least preserve the info should it be possible to expand down the road. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anybody else supporting a redirect, or do we do just delete? Closing as redirect would make sense only if the topic is at least mentioned in the target location.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here worth merging, clearly does not meet any of the applicable guidelines. Enigma^msg 19:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and per Bearcat's pointers, above. -The Gnome (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2018 (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. Enigma^msg 19:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abraash Khan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite amazed here that icc worldcup player fails notability? The cricketer is fetured in ICC , Ctv news and various other news sites. so strong Keep. MTKASH^{TALK Contribs} 18:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't played at ICC Cricket World Cup, only the Under-19 variant. It is consensus on WP:CRIC that this is not sufficiently notable to qualify for an article, it has to be for senior level appearances. Spike 'em (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Appears to satisfy WP:NCRICK based on the ICC participation, unless I have misunderstood the sources or the guideline. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DESiegel: - Yes, it appears you have misunderstood WP:NCRICK. It expands to say that a U19 player is not notable, unless they've played in a senior match. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCRIC, having not played in a FC, List A or T20 match. U19 matches do not (usually) count. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:NCRIC. Under-19 matches are not FC, List A or T20, and are not of sufficient standing. Johnlp (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Also fails WP:NCRIC as noted in two previous votes. Hack (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, fails WP:CRIN and no evidence that he passes WP:GNG. Spike 'em (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above the nominator, the article about an emerging cricketer can't be acceptable with just providing a content on his junior level experience and at least he somehow needs to play in either List A cricket, T20 matches or the First-class cricket matches to get notability. Abishe (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete for now - this article covers the subject in significant depth and would be the sort of thing I'd look for in terms of meeting the GNG. I can't find very much behind that however to add to the number of sources - the GNG is clear that we need multiple sources. There's this in the Globe and Mail which is a brief profile as is this in the Daily Star and a little in the local Mississauga press but the rest is just run of the mill stuff. It's close to enough to meet the GNG whether or not he's played any senior matches or not. One or two more sources like the first one and it's there for sure - and I will note now that we have far more press coverage of him than we have of many of the "notable" cricketers who might be considered to automatically meet project notability criteria. But not enough for now I'm afraid. Perhaps moving it to user space might be handy - I imagine he'll be considered notable after he's played a single senior match sooner rather than later. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2018 (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. Valid WP:COI concerns have been raised, but the overall consensus suggests this individual is notable. The content should be closely monitored but the consensus seems to support the existence of an article in some form. ~ mazca ^talk 01:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Eastman[edit]

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

She won the primary election last night and will face the incumbent in November. But, primary elections are not covered by WP:NPOLITICIAN. She therefore needs to meet WP:GNG, and that is dubious. Much coverage is coming out today, like this from CNN, but notice how little it talks about the candidate, but rather about the election and the "blue wave" nationally. The headline is "Democrats' anti-Trump resistance scores a big primary win in Nebraska", not "Eastman scores a big primary win in Nebraska". Similarly, the coverage in the article that is secondary is of the election, not about the candidate. And many of the citations in the article are not independent of the subject. Citations exist to her own website. And the Justice Democrats website is also certainly not independent of the subject as they are partisan and have endorsed the candidate. I also see citations to DCCC.org and FEC.gov; these are not citations that establish notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion - Please see my response on the talk page; a minority of sources covering her now are simply talking about the election, contrary to your arguments. Sure, that one CNN article is focusing on the Democrats as a whole, but what about Who is Kara Eastman? First-time female candidate stuns Democratic establishment in Nebraska's primaries (Newsweek), Pro-Abortion Rights Progressive Wins Nebraska Democratic House Primary (Huffington Post), Medicare-For-All progressive woman wins surprise victory in key Nebraska house primary (Vox), and others? Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 16:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion - To say Eastman isn't notable couldn't be further from the truth. Here are a list of independent sources that have covered Eastman (and articles are coming out literally as I type this):

Vox https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/5/16/17359188/kara-eastman-nebraska-2nd-congressional-election-medicare-for-all

Huffington Post https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kara-eastman-wins-nebraska-democratic-primary_us_5afbce44e4b0a59b4dfeaa62

CNN https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/16/politics/kara-eastman-nebraska-democrats-trump-resistance/index.html

The Hill http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/387851-former-dem-reps-comeback-bid-foiled-by-neb-primary-loss

CNBC https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/16/nebraska-primary-results-gop-cheers-kara-eastman-win-over-brad-ashford.html

NPR https://www.npr.org/2018/05/16/611563660/after-tuesdays-primaries-democratic-divisions-take-hold-in-midterm-battle

Newsweek http://www.newsweek.com/female-candidate-kara-eastman-nebraska-928031

Associated Press + Yahoo News https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/political-newcomer-kara-eastman-wins-democratic-nomination-in-nebraska-congressional-race/2018/05/16/efbfe050-58c8-11e8-9889-07bcc1327f4b_story.html?utm_term=.a40d5a13c599 https://www.yahoo.com/news/latest-eastman-wins-dem-nod-nebraskas-2nd-district-052016433--election.html

NBC News https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/upset-omaha-five-key-takeaways-tuesday-s-primaries-n874581

TYT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meYk8Lzh2Bc

ThinkProgress https://thinkprogress.org/tuesday-primaries-socialist-progressives-7d5653b47c7e/

Politico https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/05/16/tuesday-primaries-women-2018-218372

Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2018/05/16/daily-202-the-far-left-is-winning-the-democratic-civil-war/5afb5fe230fb042588799528/?utm_term=.8e30fc9f704d

US News https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/nebraska/articles/2018-05-15/the-latest-polls-open-for-nebraska-primary-election

There are far more (literally hundreds), but the websites themselves are less recognizable. As for the citations, that issue can be remedied and does not warrant deletion. Ottoshade (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And like I said above, those citations verify that Kara Eastman exists, and verify that she won the primary yesterday, but I do not believe they go far enough in establishing her notability independent of the election she's in. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this is a classic WP:NPOL case. There is a lot of coverage of her surrounding her current political candidacy, but that's not typically enough to warrant keeping an article. We need to see significant coverage of her apart from her candidacy to establish that she is notable. If she wins the general, she'll have an article, but she doesn't meet our typical notability threshold for politicians just yet. Marquardtika (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article has plenty of reliable sources. Eastman's primary win was over a previous incumbent of the seat, and got national attention. I agree that attention to her might be temporary, but Wikipedia has many articles on topics on which attention was temporary. In this case, we serve readers by giving them a neutral encyclopedia article that unifies statements from other sources. -- econterms (talk)
- Nope, not how WP:GNG works. Her notability is either WP:LASTING or it isn't. Defeating a "previous incumbent" doesn't make her automatically notable, her primary election getting national attention doesn't automatically make her notable either. We don't "serve readers" by diluting GNG. They can find any info they need on Ballotpedia, a site that serves to present all candidates for office. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LASTING refers to events which may be precursors to other events; Notability is not temporary. WP:GNG requires the following criteria to be met:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.
Done
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
Done
"Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.
Done
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.
Done (Far more websites than just the official campaign website are cited, even for content about the campaign and the policies advocated for)
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
Done

Please keep in mind that while being a candidate does not provide inherent notability, it also does not inherently mean there is a lack of notability. Even failed politicians ranging from Evan McMullin to Vermin Supreme have proven notable enough for Wikipedia because of the amount of attention they received, and because of their actions outside of their respective elections; we already have several sources on Kara Eastman's non-profit work as the founder of the Omaha Healthy Kids Alliance. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 18:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to Muboshgu: I didn't comment on GNG. I said I thought the article should be kept, and why. Ballotpedia is good but we can offer something different here. Ballotpedia is good but I don't think readers "can find any info they need on Ballotpedia" which tends to leave out narrative and context. The case for deleting looks like the deletion cases for Archie Parnell and for Mark Harris (North Carolina politician). These are characters who did surprisingly well in some kind of election and got a bunch of press coverage but haven't won an important office yet. They represent threads of important political movements, movements that are probably significant, historic, or lasting. Like those articles, we should keep this one. I don't see value in bringing them to AfD and having lengthy unpleasant legalistic words about it. I wish you hadn't. -- econterms (talk) 05:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to all regarding WP:NPOL: Please read points two and three of NPOL:

Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.
Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".

I argue that the recent coverage from third party / non-local sources satisfies this criteria. Cheers. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 18:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A beautiful test of WP:NPOL. Her only claim to notability is being a candidate, and not only that, her candidacy is upcoming. Importantly, she would not pass WP:GNG for any of her other works. Notability is not temporary, and it is possible she could be a losing candidate and still end up passing WP:GNG, but notability aside, this article could fall afoul of both WP:TOOSOON, WP:PROMO and WP:NOTNEWS, the very things we should be careful about in keeping an article regarding an upcoming candidate. SportingFlyer talk 20:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that WP:NOTNEWS covers day-to-day stories, specifically mentioning stories like routine sports games or the lives of celebrities, stories that bear no significance. As for the other policies you've mentioned, I disagree that this is WP:TOOSOON as I argue that she has already achieved enough notability to have an article. I genuinely don't see how this is WP:PROMO though, the article originally had problems with reading like an advert but once I went to the talk page requesting input from others on how that can be solved, the nom stated that they initially took too cursory a glance at the article and then removed the advertisement template. I think the real discussion here is regarding whether or not we should discount the coverage she is receiving nationally for her victory and by extension coverage of her not-for-profit; the claim about WP:PROMO is dismissed as it was never substantiated. I suspect that we likely wouldn't be proposing deletion if it was a stub about the Omaha Healthy Kids Alliance with a few sources like the ones we've found, but interestingly the arguments for deletion due to lack of notability emerge once large, national-level outlets put them in the spotlight. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you. Please note the enduring notability test of WP:NOTNEWS. I may have missed one or two, but all of the sources provided have been produced in the last 24 hours. Also WP:PROMO is always a fear with an unelected candidate, and many of the sections of the page would also appear on her campaign website (issues/endorsements, et cetera) and are not encyclopaedic. Finally, she is not notable for being aligned with the Omaha Healthy Kids Alliance. SportingFlyer talk 21:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The enduring notability test is actually precisely what I was referring to in my previous post: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia" As for WP:PROMO, I request that you find a specific example of where this is problematic, as the advertisement warning template was removed by the same editor that put it there shortly after I requested the specific examples needing attention. I don't think it's a sufficient argument to say that it's an article on a candidate, therefore it's automatic and inherent that WP:PROMO is a fear. We need specific areas to address. The sections that draw information from campaign websites are reinforced with local sources, sources from other states, and national sources. As for your last point, I disagree for two reasons. The first being that she is not simply aligned with it, but is both the founder and CEO of the non-profit organization, which has in fact received reliable, secondary coverage by news sources. If she wasn't also a candidate, this would simply be an article about that, albeit one out of countless short articles not threatened by potential deletion. In the event that there would truly be nothing left if we took out the campaign, then I'd concede that the article is just about that, but that's simply not the case. Per the reasons described in detail, she passes every point of NPOL and GNG, and the article does neither violates NOTNEWS nor PROMO. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree. First, this coverage is not yet enduring, therefore it is WP:TOOSOON at best. Second, compare her article to Ashford's or Bacon's. Hers features issues and endorsements, whereas Bacon's features his positions as opposed to issues. Third, there's no way she would achieve independent notability for being the CEO of her company, and there's not enough sourcing there to show that anyways. The source on that one is primary. She passes neither NPOL or GNG, and we'll have to agree to disagree on that. SportingFlyer talk 22:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm waiting until Friday to !vote, but this should probably redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Nebraska, 2018 rather than being deleted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with this solution. SportingFlyer talk 23:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I don't see enough for a stand-alone article now. The Omaha Healthy Kids Alliance isn't prominent enough to make her notable based off of that, and the election coverage isn't so unusually prominent to avoid the general rule against candidates for office being notable based off coverage of their campaign. Even if she loses the general election, it's possible that in a few years she will be notable due to future accomplishments. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Nebraska, 2018. The election is notable, even if the candidate may not be. --Enos733 (talk) 04:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A redirect is much preferable to deletion as it would send users desiring relevant information about the subject to an article that provides it, though my !vote still currently favors keeping it. In the event that the article is deleted or redirected but later becomes relevant in November if she becomes a congresswoman, I will archive a copy of the article into my userspace so the article would not need to be remade from a blank page. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 13:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Nebraska, 2018; no notability/press coverage independent of her campaign for this seat. Mélencron (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets Lasting and GNG per sourcing. The primary win received national attention. We have other articles on people who are most notable for contesting a congressional election (not an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, just an observation.) ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I looked up the subject of the article in Google and I can see there are dozens of articles that include significant coverage about her, including in several national sources.[11][12][13][14][15][16] There are many more citations in the article. The article easily passes WP:GNG for significant coverage in secondary sources, and considering she won the nomination for her party, it's very likely she will get significantly more coverage this year. I don't see any benefit to deleting this article. WP:POLITICIAN states "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'." That is definitely the case here. Lonehexagon (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My issue with the sources you've presented is that five out of the six of them are all from the same date, with the other from the week before. (Same problem with the articles presented above.) She may very well be notable by November, but merely winning a primary does not make one notable under WP:BLP1E. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person, with the event in this instance being the election. SportingFlyer talk 05:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to the guidelines, WP:BLP1E applies when all three are true: 1.) "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." This doesn't apply because there is more than one event described in the article including her candidacy announcement and her primary win. There is also discussion of her campaign that is published between those events. 2.) "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." That does not apply here as she is now a main candidate. It is likely she will receive even more coverage as a nominated candidate than she did before she won the nomination. 3.) "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Her becoming a candidate is significant (as evidenced by national attention) and her role is substantial as she's the main person in the event. Zero of the three required criteria for WP:BLP1E applies to this candidate. Lonehexagon (talk) 05:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, I misread it as an or. I still don't think lasting notability has been shown. SportingFlyer talk 05:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But you do agree that WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here? What guideline do you believe indicates that she is not notable? Lonehexagon (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E does apply here. Our usual standard for evaluating candidates for office is the internationalization of coverage. If a newspaper in Germany provides significant coverage of a candidate from Canada, then we know something special is about the candidate and not the campaign. We have constantly treated the campaign as one event (from speculation about who might run to post election events (see United States presidential election, 2020)). Secondly, unelected candidates are very likely to return and remain low profile individuals after the election (and unless there is something unique about a candidate or their platform, nearly all long term value can be kept in the page about the campaign [see my comment below to Deb]). Everything on this subject's page can be added to United States House of Representatives elections in Nebraska, 2018 and nothing would be lost. If the subject wins, of course a new page would be created. --Enos733 (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but stick a big COI notice at the top. Let the reader beware. Deb (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Resorting to COI tags is not how Wikipedia works, or should work. It is the same reason we do not move to draft space the pages of deleted candidates (see WP:POLOUTCOMES). What is appropriate, and a usual outcome, is a redirect to the article "detailing the specific race in question, such as United States Senate election in Nevada, 2010." In that space, certain biographical details can be added, as well as endorsements, polling, and other elections-related information. The problem with keeping articles about unelected candidates is two-fold. The first is that most candidates are low-profile individuals outside the context of their campaign; the second is that Wikipedia should not be a repository of campaign brochures, or a space for candidates (or their supporters) to push their vision and ideology. --Enos733 (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly a COI involved in the editing, but the subject's status does not allow for deletion on the grounds of notability. Deb (talk) 07:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Deb. The abundance of secondary sources that put what would otherwise be a local congressional race in the midwest to the national spotlight demonstrates notability; this is all that matters with regard to deletion. However, even if COI was grounds for deletion, the same user that initiated the nomination for deletion and added to the talk page a warning about a potential COI from Ottoshade agreed that the article doesn't actually contain any problematic advertorial content, meaning that this isn't actually a concern. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 01:04, 24 May 2018 (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. Low participation, but an unsourced assertion about a bankruptcy on a BLP makes this a clear delete for now. No prejudice against recreation with superior sources. A Train^talk 10:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Suttles[edit]

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

No indication of notability by our standards. He's a businessman, and does business. Some deals (and other things) have attracted coverage in local and trade press, but I don't see any in-depth coverage of the person behind them. The top hit on Google news is about closure of a hotel for non-payment of sales tax. This is not of encyclopaedic interest or importance. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 06:57, 17 May 2018 (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. Except two WP:IDONTLIKEIT !votes to delete, the rest agrees that the articles should exist in some form or another. Whether as stand-alone or as redirects (with or without merge) is not clear here but can always be discussed on the talk pages. So Why 15:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guam at the 2015 World Championships in Athletics[edit]

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

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

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

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

Does not match any SNG; might be fine with GNG (per the sources in Regine Tugade). Would like to have consensus to keep the article before I work on expanding it. Kees08 (Talk) 01:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Consensus is that these types of articles are notable for large, multi-event competitions like this. Every other country at the World Championships has an article. I fail to see why this one in particular is non-notable. Smartyllama (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should have multiple-nom'ed. I would think at least all of the articles with only one participant should be deleted, since that information can just be in the participants article. I did not single this one out for any reason other than I am working on Guam at the Olympics, and individual Guamanians, so it was brought to my attention. Kees08 (Talk) 19:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that info should be in the participant's article. Many of these athletes compete in dozens of international championships and flooding their article with details of every one, while definitely notable, would likely be frowned upon. That's why we need these articles -- to elaborate on individual championships in a way that can't be done in athlete articles. Habst (talk)

Likely should have been a multiple-nom of all these, but delete. The NSPORTS guidelines only covers these country articles for the Olympics and Paralympics; the Commonwealth Games are likely okay too, but even those haven't been enshrined into policy. Going into individual WC's and creating country by country articles is a bit too far into non-notability for my taste, the event-by-event articles are enough. No, we're not arguing strictly policy terms here, but, delete as non-notable. Courcelles (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no doubt that these athletes are slow as molasses, but I think just seeing that in NTRACK is really looking past the point here. Looking at the articles for Regine Tugade and Derek Mandell, these people are accomplished athletes in their country and there is likely significant notable coverage that could be included in these articles to improve them. Wikipedia has loads of articles on "terrible" e.g. football players in an international sense but we don't delete them because the stats simply aren't as damning in sports where you're not racing against a clock every time. Habst (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I'm advocating a model where edition-level national team articles are only relevant for major teams/teams with substantial coverage. For those that don't, like Guam, it makes sense to redirect the by-year articles to an all-edition national page, which I have started at Guam at the World Championships in Athletics. As for the statement about looking to expand the 2015 article, it's already pretty much complete, such is the limited participation of Guam in global level sport. SFB 22:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sillyfolkboy: Should I expand this AfD to include all Guamanian articles at the World Championships then? Merge seems like a good result to me. As for expanding it, I could, since it is only a table right now (just add prose essentially), I just want to do it in the right spot and not have my work deleted. Kees08 (Talk) 19:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, sounds like a good idea. I'm pretty sure the main nation article meets notability criteria. SFB 22:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sillyfolkboy: I really appreciate your fantastic contributions to athletics on Wikipedia, but I wholly disagree with your comment that that the 2015 article is mostly complete. I know nothing about Guam athletics but added a few sentences to it just now to show that there are multiple independent and notable sources covering Guam's performance specifically in the 2015 Championships. Based on the articles I've read I think it would be possible to expand on the impact of her performance a lot more if anyone else cares to try. I think it's very important to understand the greater cultural and national identity significance of athletics performances in smaller countries, which is certainly notable even with (very) slow times. Habst (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so all the newly added articles will be here for a full seven days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - (nominator comment) Merge to Guam at the World Championships in Athletics Kees08 (Talk) 19:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the merge has already happened. I don't think we need to redirect - having hundreds of redirects in the name space for each country and year will only clutter up the search bar and unnecessarily complicate navigation. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The merge has not already happened. Smartyllama (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is what I was referring to - Guam at the World Championships in Athletics#2015 seems to have all the meat there now, except for the date and location, but none of the years have that info. The summary medal count is there also. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Guam at the World Championships in Athletics#2015 only has one table per year with no prose at all. Guam's individual performances at World Championships seem to almost always be notable from what I can tell, and the national coverage is by event rather than holistic in nature. This lends itself to articles per event and year rather than just one for all years of an event, which I can find no articles covering. For an example of the type of content that could be created in these national articles, even when there is only one person, I just added some sentences to Guam at the 2015 World Championships in Athletics. Habst (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are so many of these useless articles out there. If there is hardly any content they should all be deleted. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the solution is to create the content rather than delete the articles. Habst (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Guam at the World Championships in Athletics. All the content is there already, so there's no reason to have this as a standalone article and nothing left for a merge to actually do. Reyk _YO! 12:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I voted against doing a redirect because if you think about it, taking it to an extreme, let’s say there’s a redirect for every year’s article – those are going to show up alphabetically in the search bar first, and the user is going to have to scroll down to find the main article, not knowing they can just click on any one to be redirected. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Search results do not appear alphabetically in the search bar, they appear by a mixture of relevance to search term and popularity of article. Also, years in which Guam did not compete would not exist as articles or redirects so there would only be a handful of articles showing, all very improvable. Even if that were true, just because a country's showing at the 1983 Worlds might not be notable doesn't mean that their showing at other years would be notable. I think that the four articles at the top are notable and could be expanded. The prose in the 2015 article is already more thorough than that of the 2015 U.S. article for example. Habst (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a possible search term. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I strongly believe that we should strive to avoid coverage from weak sources, and at first glance I can see why we might think these articles are already "complete" and there must not be any notable independent coverage. But from just a little bit of research I saw that this is really not at all true. Citing the Guam at the 2015 World Championships in Athletics article alone, there are at least four independent sources covering Guam's performance at 2015 Worlds in a non-routine way despite there being only one athlete -- and that's not even including the articles that aren't focused specifically on Guam. As with many other stubs on Wikipedia, the solution is not to delete or merge them but to improve the articles by inserting relevant and notable coverage in prose form. Having the articles separated by year is the best way to do that, as it makes it easy to just write paragraphs and logically relates more to the independent national coverage, which is almost always by year anyways (i.e., potential references are more often written about Guam's performance at a specific year, not Guam's performance holistically in all World Championships). Habst (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2018 (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. I'm closing this as a SNOW keep, which is valid given the votes and the arguments; there certainly is no consensus to delete. Moreover, this AfD is a giant distraction right now, and closing it does not mean, of course, that we cannot revisit it once the waters have calmed. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doria Ragland[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited. The sources are tabloids and not reliable sources. Natureium (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned below, notability is not inherited. Additionally, material in article is irrelevant. Article is unnecessary, and cannot reasonably be completed, even if there were sources to write an adequate article on this subject. Ronanheathcote 14:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep definitely. This page will receive much more visits than the average Wikipedia page even in the years to come, so deleting it would be purely an action of personal bias, i.e. trying to force your personal opinion that this isn't important on the rest of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.197.25 (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable in her own right, but the information should definitely be merged with the Meghan Markle article as this info about her upbringing is not even mentioned there. Whether the information is from tabloids is neither here nor there, they are published sources. 31.54.35.161 (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely. People search Wikipedia for information exactly like this, to dig deep into information that cannot be easily found just by googling a name. Thanks. --Grattan33 (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Grattan33[reply]

Comment Notability is not inherited. The sources are tabloids and not reliable sources. However, there is now a sufficient amount of information, even though it still only focuses on her as the mother of Meghan Markle. Natureium (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move content into new article titled something like Family of Meghan Markle. As regards what we have so far, being related to a notable individual does not obviate notability. The claim that the material in the article is irrelevant does not hold for anyone wanting to read about Doria Ragland. In a strict sense the article is unnecessary but then so is the entire Wikipedia (lack of necessity is not a deletion criterion) - remember life on earth continued for quite a long time without any Wikipedia articles. The assertion that the article cannot reasonably be completed is probably not correct either but to see whether there is really enough material for a stand-alone article we would need to check all reliable sources and I suggest that it is very likely that more material will become available over the next few days. Finally, there are reliable sources available now. E.g.:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/15/the-royal-in-laws-meghan-markles-family

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/17/meet-meghan-markles-family-parents-siblings-prince-harry-will/

and a bit more Binging / Googling will turn up more. Greenshed (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update There is now sufficient material, backed by reliable sources, for me to say keep as opposed to keep or merge. Greenshed (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in order to answer the inevitable question "who she?". It looks like more than 1,000 people consulted this page yesterday, so if you think that wikipedia exists, primarily, to inform its users on stuff they want to know about, then that makes the case. But ... would a more detailed and thoughtful entry be a good idea? Yes please. Charles01 (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She doesn't meet the guidelines at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event or Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being the mother of Prince Harry's wife / finance is not "one event." Greenshed (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move content to a new "Family of Meghan Markle" (or a similarly-named page) per above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that "Family of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" has been created, I still stand by the view that Doria Ragland should have a separate page. Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes GNG. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - tabloid stuff. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC

Comment As I posted above, there are relevant articles in the Guardian and the Telegraph newspapers, neither of which are considered tabloids. Greenshed (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and move some parts of the article to "Family of Meghan Markle". Gharouni^Talk 02:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Classic case of WP:NOTINHERITED, nothing remarkable about her own life. WWGB (talk) 08:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not really a classic case at all. To quote WP:NOTINHERITED, "The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." As noted by Rich Farmbrough above, Doria Ragland easily passes WP:GNG so by virtue of the essay WWGB cited, the article should stay. Greenshed (talk) 08:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough notability for a page. Miss HollyJ (talk) 09:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Move - Agree with WP:NOTINHERITED. Also, too many tabloid sources in the article that provides little information that are fit to be in an encyclopedia. There seems to be some news surrounding Markle's father. I would support a new article titled Family of Meghan Markle where such matters are grouped. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 10:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this article is useful for those wishing to find out information about Markle's parents. --Mozart834428196 (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject is not independently notable. If it were not for her daughter's second marriage, she would not have been in the news. This is entirely comparable to the case of the father of the Duchess of Cambridge, who is also not notable enough for an article. Surtsicna (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per extensive coverage. Per WP:GNG. Per reliable third party sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The notability guidelines in Wikipedia is a bit rubbish generally, and especially on a topic like this. The fact is, there is a bereft of information specifically about Doria Ragland. Everything supposedly about Doria Ragland seems to be in relation to her daughter, rather than about Doria Ragland 'in her own right'. Wikipedia is full of vanity articles about folk who really do not deserve articles, if most of which are not outright LinkedInesque autobiographies! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- In which case you should be proposing changes to the guidelines. This isn't the right place for that. Danrok (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the repeated argument about WP:NOTINHERITED, which sees to be the only argument for 'delete' simply does not apply here, as per Greenshed and others. Jeppiz (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found this AFD page solely because I wanted to read the article. A marriage is much longer than just the wedding day, she will remain the mother of the Duchess of Sussex, who appears likely to now remain in the public eye on occasion. If the decision is to delete, it could be merged to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only things she's notable for is being the mother of Meghan Markle. As some said: move to larger artcle about her family -- fdewaele, 19 May 2018, 15:32 CET
Merge--not notable on her own, move to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex article. Sir Rhosis (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Sir Rhosis I returned your content and struck it out. I see that your edit removing the content said Withdrawing my "Merge"; sadly, with the accusations flying she's going to be hella notable if half of what Megan's sister says is true; shame this family stuff can't be kept within a family
- I respectfully returned the content and struck it out, as it is better to maintain the history.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There has been enough coverage on the media to make her notable, and she's the first African-American in-law of the British royal family. We already have articles about the relatives of other British princesses so I see no obstacle in having one about Meghan's mother. Keivan.f^Talk 14:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Undoubtedly a person of interest in her own right, for the imemdiate future at least. It is surely a breach of simple commonsense to delete an article which many people are looking to find out informatio about her, not her daughter.Rcb1 (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)rcb1[reply]
Keep WP:NOTINHERITED is not applied if the person "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Clearly she has, a quick search of news articles shows us this. Danrok (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much of the content of the article is not about her but rather about her ancestors and her former husband, therefore the content can be moved to an article about the family of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Björn Knutson (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV or merge into article title Family of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. CookieMonster755 ✉ 17:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the mother of a the wife of a British duke is notable; however this discussion, an act of futility, could be ended and deleted as hardly notable, not even qualifying as "a tempest in a teapot." (PeacePeace (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]
- Wikipedia seems to be specialising in tempests in teapots today! There are also move requests to move Ragland's daughter and son-in-law's articles back to their pre-marriage names. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is independently-demonstrated by the breadth and depth of significant coverage in multiple WP:RS linked in the article and available from even the most cursory of searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to her daughter. Notability is not inherited. She's what, a yoga instructor? Might do a bit on Oprah? Give me a break. Honestly the dad has a better claim to notability as a lighting man. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability whatsoever. She received no media coverage prior to her daughter becoming well-known. All the coverage of her since then is about her being Meghan's mother. Jim Michael (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above. As notable as the day is long (at least this day). Randy Kryn (talk) 20:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People are wanting to read the article. IMO deleting for lack of notability should be reserved for articles about subjects which people are not interested in (e.g.: high school vanity band). And Ragland being the conduit for African American ancestry into the British royal family is notable to me. Thue (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only news she makes is as the "mother of Meghan Markle." Notability is not accrued to the family of famous people, and that is certainly all that Ragland is notable for. After deletion, a redirect should be created, pointing at the section of Meghan's article that deals with her family. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 20:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We don't give people their own articles just because many people want to read about them. If we did, we'd have to create articles about all the non-famous family members of loads of celebrities. Is she even worthy of a redirect? Everyone who wants to read about her will want to read about Meghan. Jim Michael (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If mother of the Duchess of Sussex isn't enough, I don't know what is. David G (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject clearly meets WP:GNG. People want to read about the subject, and many writers have published reliable sources for us to reliably summarize. I wonder if some of the good faith deletion-minded editors might consider whether their opposition really boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough press coverage to ensure notability and people will search for this person. Peteinterpol (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person is notable for being the first African-American parent of a member of the British royal family. Additionally, this page has been seen by almost 100,000 people in the last few days. This person is clearly is notable enough now (although she might have been relatively unknown previously). Mauro Cicognini (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move No notability on its own, solely known for being the mother of Meghan Markle. The relevant content of this article should be integrated into that of Meghan Marcle before deleting it. --Arbraxan (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a Ragland, of descent from the white, formerly slave-holding, side of the family, this article among other things makes it clear that my ancestors were engaged in acts that I find reprehensible, a fact that must not be forgotten. That Ms. Ragland has achieved such notability through her daughter's marriage into the British royal family, and has carried herself with such poise, makes me proud that her family chose to keep the Ragland name despite its origins. This article establishes a family lineage that should be remembered. Andrew Ragland —Preceding undated comment added 23:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The mother of the Duchess of Sussex deserves an article. Definitely keep. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:SIGCOV and WP:COMMONSENSE. The wikipedia article had over 80,000 hits on Friday alone: do we really need to delete one of our most useful articles? Dormskirk (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the number of hits / interest or merge into article title Family of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; 2nd choice would be to merge into Family of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, but she seems to have enough coverage and notability to merit her own article. PamD 09:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, as customary for people who receive tabloid coverage, fluff pieces, and subsidiary coverage due to their actually notable relatives. Compare to the children of President Barack Obama, who have press coverage, yet have not done anything that would otherwise warrant them their own encyclopedia article in a rational world (or a professional encyclopedia!). Unless or until she wins the social-work or yoga-instructor equivalent of the Oscars, she shouldn't have her own article. --Animalparty! (talk) 09:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero notability in her own right. The number of hits is irrelevant - I only looked at the page to see why it existed.Smurfmeister (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Seem to me like most people !voting delete uses WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationales. Simply ignoring to mentioning sources, huge amount of hits, etc. BabbaQ (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lots of current interest has generated plenty of sources, and it can always be merged into Family of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex at a later stage. Bob talk 11:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Notability independently-demonstrated for a page due to significant coverage from numerous third party RS sources which clearly passes GNG. WP:NOTINHERITED doesn't apply here as this isn't applied if the person "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Tanbircdq (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too only looked at the page to see why it existed. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep THIS ARTICLE: Doria is now the mother of a British Princess and an African American, History has been created in royal family. Special:Contributions/2606:a000:121a:8049:fc41:e520:3e9:cb08 (talk)
Keep and expand the content. Maybe later when all the "hoopla" dies down it can be merged into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_of_Meghan,_Duchess_of_Sussex, but she is forever notable. 104.3.48.224 (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above reasons. Brocicle (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That she has received a lot of media coverage is irrelevant, because all those articles are about her being Meghan's mother. None of them are about her work, achievements etc. - because she's just an ordinary person whose only reason for being in the public eye is her daughter's relationship with a Royal. If media coverage were sufficient for a non-notable family member of a notable person to have an article, we'd have articles on each of Kim Kardashian's children, Angelina Jolie's children, Beyonce's children etc. Jim Michael (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have now expressed your opinions in two comments and one !vote. We get it.BabbaQ (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the content somewhere; Doria Ragland must redirect to the information expected; sources may be a little suspect now, but serious biographies of Meghan Markle will follow. Gtgith (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a week after the royal wedding to determine if this article should be kept or not. As it stands, this is a hot-button issue. Cooler heads should prevail. Wait, see, then decide. Otherwise, relax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.134.78 (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Added intent for this IP user, so that it correctly appears as an ivote, rather than a decision.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We're here to serve readers, and there can be no doubt that many readers will want to read this article. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and expand -- even with a page for Meghan's family, Doria Ragland is separately notable (and has received much coverage) as the first person descended from African slaves to be a royal in-law. She participated in the royal wedding -- previously unheard of for a mother of the bride -- likely in part due to this cultural significance. This page has already received tons of traffic and will likely only receive more in the years to come. Proserpine (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect to the Family of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex article. The argument that this article is the same as the children of Barrack Obama (or Stanley Armour Dunham for that matter) is a strong one. The argument that she herself has done nothing notable, is a poor argument, in that many articles on the wiki are written about people who are notable because of who they are not what they have done. (I would also add that since the wedding she has garnered a degree of notability in her own right (I mean every one writing on this talk page knows who she is)) D A R C 12345 10:44 AM 21/05/2018
Comment I'd argue a better comparison than 'Children of Barack Obama' is comparisons to other royal family articles, since we're talking about the royals. Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall's relatives have pages going back generations even though many of them are much less notable by Wikipedia standards than Doria Ragland. Compare Bruce Shand and Rosalind Shand. Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge's mother also has her own page despite meriting less personal coverage in the media than Ms. Ragland: Carole Middleton. Proserpine (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no comparison! The Duchess of Cornwall WILL become the Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the other Commonwealth Realms, whether or not she will be styled as 'Queen' at least in the United Kingdom or as 'Queen' generally, whereas the now Duchess of Sussex will not, in all likelihood … furthermore, the 'basic biographical details (and achievements)' of the Shards are extensively documented (complete with their full addresses for contact (or the details of their nominated lawyers in lieu) … and verified) by such books as Debrett's, which documents the British aristocracy so to speak, and their whole lives documented elsewhere … unless, you are in fact proposing to somehow permanently remove the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge as well as the Princes and Princess of Cambridge from the line of succession! … We don't even have Doria Ragland's full date of birth, and why not?! Exactly! … and perhaps we should respect the fact that Doris Ragland perhaps in fact personally desires to remain a 'nobody'! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're suggesting reasons why Camilla deserves a page, as she certainly does. Her parents are not in and of themselves especially notable, whether or not they are listed in Debrett's, and my point is that Doria Ragland has received more personal attention among the public and in the press than any member of Camilla's family -- or Catherine's mother, who also has a page. The fact that this woman is getting a deletion debate when many other royal relatives have not (including Meghan's father!) is frankly suspicious in its intent. Proserpine (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the reliability of the sources will improve in time and the subject in the article is notable enough to have its own article. Grandia01 (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BASIC as there is good detailed coverage such as Good Housekeeping. Note that the page in question has had over 1.5 million readers recently. Andrew D. (talk) 06:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Good Housekeeping', with the greatest of respect, is basically a 40/45-plus women/housewives's magazine (for women hitting menopause but not old enough to collect the over-65 bus pass just yet) … stuff inside are no more reliable than the G2 (Life and Style (Daily Features)) supplement of the actual printed Guardian here in the UK or the Readers' Digest, of whichever edition! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:IAR. With Over 948,000 views on one day alone, 19 May 2018, deletion of this page would not improve the encyclopedia at this time, as many WP:READERS are interested in the subject. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I searched for, and found this article Wizzy…☎ 09:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject is not independently notable. Shovon (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge what (little) information there is about her into a related article (either the daughter's or 'family of ..'). 'Deserves an article' isn't a WP rationale - the reader deserves information about the family to be presented in a coherent fashion and there is no indication that Ms Ragland needs a separate article because there is insufficient info about her and because her notability is entirely linked to her daughter and new family-in-law. Deleting the article does not delete the biog info - it simply saves the reader having to go to various articles to access that info. Ms Ragland appears to be a quiet private person - who appeared content with little 'public life' and there is no reason to think that this situation is going to change (the almost inevitable future tabloid gossip aside). Of course she is notable enough to be recorded on WP, but the need to have her own article is very questionable.Pincrete (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with room for improvement. Yes, her notability is due to her daughter's marriage to a royal. But people will explore her heritage and expand it, likely here (for now). Of course by the time her royal nephew-in-law ascends the throne there will have been several royal funerals and she will probably be an elderly grandmother of children with very minor positions of royalty.
Speedy delete. Clearly not independently notable. Notability is not inherited (and certainly not from offspring whose notability is only derived from their husbands in the first place, or more exactly: from the grandmother of her daughter's husband, to her, in a different country with no royals). Angela Merkel's brother was previously deleted – Merkel is of course a much more powerful, significant, notable and accomplished figure than her daughter who is merely an example of the famous for being famous phenomenon, even more so than Ivanka Trump. Her mother can be mentioned in the Family of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex article, along with e.g. her brother Thomas Markle Jr. who doesn't have his own article either. The only reason her father appears to have an article is the fact that he was once, back in the 80s, nominated for an Emmy. --Tataral (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - 1.5 million of our readers visited this article in the last 3 days. Clearly it is important and valuable to them. She is the subject of multiple in-depth profiles by major publications, and clearly meets GNG,--Pharos (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also this was the sixth most popular article on the English Wikipedia on 19 May. Greenshed (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Article should not be deleted as mother's of other members of the British Royal family have wiki pages, for example e.g. Carole Middleton Mother of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge has a wiki page, mother of Diana, Princess of Wales has wiki page, Mother and Father of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall have wiki pages. So there is not reason why mother of the Duchess of Sussex should not have a wki page. As previous comment says "1.5 million of our readers visited this article in the past three days". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:E864:A400:839:3C4D:C52E:F7C0 (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Family of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. All sources pertaining to Doria Ragland that have been cited so far discuss her exclusively with respect to her relationship to Meghan Markle. In contrast with Markle's father, Thomas Markle, an Emmy-winning television crew member, Doria Ragland has no notability in her own right. The biographical information in the current article tells the story of what sounds like a very nice lady, but has nothing to do with her notability as an individual. On the other hand, if included in the "Family of..." article, it would pertain directly to the topic. And there's nothing to prevent 1.5 million people from reading about Doria Ragland if information about her is included in a suitable article.. Obviously, if Ragland goes on to achieve notability in her own right, perhaps as a speaker, author, or activist, or else in her professional field of social work, it would be appropriate for there to be an article on her, discussing that notability. --DavidK93 (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ragland is personally notable due to the great public interest in her status as the first African-American royal in-law, which is a significant development in African-American history. Publications such as the New York Times have written articles on this fact. An expansion of this article would ideally discuss the historic nature of Ragland's presence in the royal family in more detail, but even without that development of the page yet to date she is more personally notable than almost any other royal mother-in-law in recent memory, including Carole Middleton, Rosalind Shand, etc. Proserpine (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So if Harry (the guy who is currently 6th in the line of succession in his country, and who will never ever succeed to any important office) married a Czech woman, her mother and other relatives would also be notable because they were the first Czechs to be related to (a minor member of) the British royal family (whose relevance is comparable to that of Prince Michael of Kent), or something like that? I'm sure Czech newspapers would also write comparable articles in such a situation. --Tataral (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To act as if black African ancestry has the same history among the nobility as Czech ancestry is to be willfully obtuse. This is an important event internationally and intercontinentally. It is important to the history of the British royal family, a major architect and enabler of the African slave trade. British papers are writing about this as much as American ones are. And whether or not Harry is highly placed in the line of succession, due to the international obsession with his mother he is one of the most internationally famous members of the royal family -- as so too will be his wife. Proserpine (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know that in general there is a policy that people shouldn't be given articles if they're only notable for being a relation of someone famous, but in this case there are clearly enough sources about Doria Ragland specifically to pass GNG and make a reasonably well referenced article. Personally I think the policies on inherited notability are too strict, and I'd incline towards ignoring all rules in this instance. This article's presence definitely doesn't diminish Wikipedia in any way, and is clearly of interest to many people. BubbleEngineer (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The information is certainly of interest - but that isn't the same as the need for a separate article. The WP concept of Notability is probably a misnomer - it certainly shouldn't be interpreted as synonymous with 'importance' or 'fame'. The policies are also framed in such a way that there should be sufficient reliable information to write more than a stub (which is what we have at the moment). Why do we know so little about Ms Ragland? Clue, because she - and those close to her - have chosen to keep her private existence private and only the bare outline of her life is known. That bare outline is a fairly remarkable story and is of interest to many. I myself got to the article (and this AfD), because of curiosity about her. What I found was that little more than a paragraph or two about her life was in the public sphere - all of which I already knew. Unless she decides to write, or permit a biography - there is no reason to believe that situation will change. If she has managed to keep herself private in spite of the enormous media interest in her in recent months, what reason is there to believe that will - or even should - change? Pincrete (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure I understand your point - to me there seems to be a perfectly adequate 'Start class' amount of content on the page, certainly as much as most articles on Wikipedia? Just because there isn't enough information to make an FA doesn't mean it's not worth having an article at all (and if this is a WP policy then I profoundly disagree with it). There are plenty of|unarguably noteworthy historical figures (as an example) about which we have barely enough information for a couple of paragraphs, but that doesn't mean it's not worth having an article about them at all. Fundamentally I just don't understand what the project would gain by removing this article. BubbleEngineer (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There IS enough info for a start class article, I agree, but for the reader, what is gained by it being on its 'own' page? What about her (of the info available), would be off-topic or inapt on either her daughter's page - or a 'family of' page? We too often (IMO), treat a biog page as though it were some kind of reward for 'significance' or 'importance'. Articles about non-human subjects don't tend to suffer from this tendency - there the question is much more likely to be, 'where does the info fit most comfortably' and is there a perceived need for a seperate article? Pincrete (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I respect your opinion, whether or not someone is notable enough to have their own page IS something of a value judgment. I think the deletion of this page would be very insulting to a lot of people for whom this woman is a vital new historical figure. For that reason alone I'd say to keep it, but she also meets WP:GNG by every logical standard. Proserpine (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I actually came here to vote delete, but upon rechecking the sources, WP:GNG is met, even if there isn't any indication that this person has done anything of significance. Daask (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move content into new article titled something like Family of Meghan Markle as stated above, example. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I bet Doria Ragland was discussed in just about every household in the world this weekend. It seems crazy not to provide this information on Wikipedia.--Jesswade88 (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You greatly overestimate how many people care about a British wedding. Natureium (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The 90% white male residents of the encyclopedia are marking this historic occasion by trying to erase a woman of color. Not a good look for you, Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Completely irrelevant. No one has said anything about her being a woman of color. Natureium (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a very good statement for an Admin. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be sure to feel awful about it tomorrow. Gamaliel (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of commentators have spoken of the subject's status. Here's an example from the New Yorker: The Profound Presence of Doria Ragland "Through her presence, Ragland implied a lineage of black women—and represented the fraught lineage of a nation. It should not be lost on anyone that, despite the pitiful shenanigans of her ex-husband, Thomas Markle, and the gossiping of her ex-step-children, Ragland flew to Heathrow to do what black women do: straighten the mess up. ...". Andrew D. (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing that, but the editor was accusing Wikipedians of being racist, not the media. It's the people on this AfD that I was referring to when I said no one has given her race as a reason for deletion. Natureium (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that racism is generally more subtle than to come straight out and say that the page should be deleted due to someone's race. That said, though, I haven't seen any votes that are concerning or outside the norm for these discussions.

It is seeming to me, based on the votes and the hits so far, that it is unlikely her article content will be deleted outright, but either summarized and merged into the Family article or kept. Either way, someone that want to get some information about Ms. Ragland will be able to get to it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well we sexist editors have obviously been napping! Try Michael Middleton, father of a probable future Queen of the UK, then try the mother of that same future Queen! Personally I think both should be 'family of', since anyone wanting to know about 'her mum' probably wants to know about 'her dad'. The implied accusation of racism here, would be a bit more credible if anyone were arguing to delete the information, they aren't. They are almost entirely discussing where the info about Doria Ragland should be in order to be most accessible and for the overall coverage of the family to be most coherent. Pincrete (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best solution is for Gamaliel to stay retired. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support this suggestion. Natureium (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Pincrete's bold !vote was "Delete". That means to remove all the content and its history so that none of it is kept. They go on to talk about merger but don't seem to realise that this requires keeping the content, rather than deleting it. See WP:MAD which explains this. Andrew D. (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete and merge what information there is about her into a related article,(either the daughter's or 'family of ..')", was my vote. I believe (or at least believed) that the "Family of" article did not exist when I posted, but was simply posited as an option. I tend to assume that other editors are actually going to read beyond the bold comment! Pincrete (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the whole family of The Duchess of Cambridge have article, why the mother of The Duchess of Sussex cn't have one? She is not mother of anybody. She is mother of a member o British Royal Family. I think this is enough to have an article. Minerva97 (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge relevant info to her daughter. The lead accurately describes her claim to notability is through her daughter. Notability isn't inherited and all of the information that is notable relates to her daughter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:F15F:D980:8971:23A0 (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2018 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Jordan Evans[edit]

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

A young actress with a few minor roles.[17] No other claim to notability, except that she might be in an unnamed band. Just fancruft really. Has already been deprodded once, so has to come to AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails the multiple significant roles in notable productions test. Not even close by any other measure of possible notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2018 (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. Clearly no consensus to delete. Discussion about whether or not to merge can continue on the article's talk page. A Train^talk 10:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Newspeak words[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. wumbolo ^^^ 14:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List cruft ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think some of the words that have entered normal everyday language (eg the bluelinked ones) might be better listed at something like Nineteen Eighty-Four in popular media (though that itself should be "Nineteen Eighty-Four in popular culture"), but this as a separate list is unnecessary. --Masem (t) 16:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: We already have Newspeak#Vocabulary, and all the "blue-linked" words actually redirect to that section. wumbolo ^^^ 16:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, that all seems primary-sourced words (though I'm sure effort can be made to support a few of Newspeak's terms via secondary sources). If all those bluelinks in this redirect there, then a merge is not needed and deletion is appropriate. --Masem (t) 17:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTDICT. Redirect to Newspeak if necessary. Ajf773 (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page gets 600+ views daily, clearly it is of importance to many people and shouldn't be thrown under the bus so hastily. Additionally, Wiktionary is not a Newspeak dictionary, it's an English dictionary (and other actual languages). A listing of Newspeak words would be of value to people as it would otherwise not be organized in a list format with all the words together. It could use more references, but it is potentially of encyclopedic value._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Newspeak#Vocabulary--Jaldous1 (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to help readers differentiate between canonical 1984 words and commonly misattributed terms (e.g.groupthink). ―cobaltcigs 17:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Newspeak#Vocabulary, keeping only the bluelinks and items that can be sourced to secondary sources as significant. Wikipedia is otherwise not a directory of vocabulary. The words can also be referenced in other 1984-related articles, but that need not have any relation to the list. The "misattributed terms" section of the list is original research and should be removed unless sources say those terms are indeed often misattributed. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 02:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Why Societies Need Dissent (2005), p. 140 and many other books state that groupthink was based on the word doublethink and intended to have an Orwellian connotation. It doesn't say they are commonly confused, but one could come to the conclusion that they are very likely to be confused by those who aren't aware what the actual Newspeak words are._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the policy of WP:NOTDIC is being grossly misrepresented here. Actually, the nomination doesn't even try to explain how this article could supposedly fit in its interdictions. No, no, just drop a link to a random policy there, and boom… !! Kind regards, --Usien6 02:47, 24 May 2018 (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rhopalodontidae[edit]

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

Sources do not exist to establish notability of this, and there isn't enough information available to write an article. Natureium (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Most articles on extinct little known genera/taxa I have come across exist like this (although often with one resource some of which only mention it in passing), also I don't think notability is an issue with extinct genera/taxa (if it is then half of all known palaeontology articles would be deleted as they are of the same standard). I don't see any reason to single this article out when there are plenty like this. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES; biological taxa are considered inherently notable. There are articles for two genera in this family; the family article is needed to complete the taxonomic hierarchy for the genera. Plantdrew (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep As a general rule, unless they are unverifiable, animal stubs will always survive AFD.💸Money💸emoji💸^💴 19:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain that by citing a wikipedia policy? Natureium (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES 💸Money💸emoji💸^💴 22:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Natureium (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this appears to be a real thing, these afd efforts would have been better spent in providing sourcing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in-use taxon. However, trout to Lavalizard101 for creating stubs without any references; and particularly for not including one where the source cannot readily be found by others (I have been unable to find a citation for the family - most sources just put the included species under Dinocephalia). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - quite a few hits on Google Scholar. Add any of them as source and expand the article, deletion should never be the outcome for such cases. Only question is whether this is considered valid or a synonym of something else today. FunkMonk (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2018 (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. Enigma^msg 19:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guido Vrolix[edit]

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

No notibility Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 12:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 12:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 12:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched online and could not find SIGCOV.104.163.137.171 (talk) 05:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not shown, per nom. Easily fails WP:GNG. Article lacks reliable independent sources. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 08:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to fail GNG/BASIC based on a search for sources, and does not qualify for inclusion under WP:NARTIST. Sam Sailor 18:35, 23 May 2018 (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. Default to keep. There was good conversation concerning repurposing the page by either merging or creating a new page all together. This conversation can certainly continue on the talk page. J04n(talk page) 15:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Derangement Syndrome[edit]

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

An article about a neologism supported by opinion columns and inferior sources like Washington Times and DrHurd.com. Does not appear to be a serious encyclopedic subject that could be expanded in any meaningful way. Fails WP:NOTOPINION and WP:NEO. - Mr X 🖋 12:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I de-PRODded this because I felt it was far too controversial for a PROD. I'm neutral on the AfD for now. Smartyllama (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at least redirect to target of Bush derangement syndrome. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: see also WP:Articles for deletion/Bush Derangement Syndrome (6th nomination). It's not quite clear to me which of the many articles about Trump's presidency would be the right merge (or redirect) target for this. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at least merge to Donald Trump. MrX failed to mention the wide variety of sources that were on the page including the Washington Post, New Yorker, National Review, Los Angeles Times, and Chicago Tribune. More sources have been added including more from Washington Post, CNN, Fox News, Time, Forbes, and local newspapers. It is obvious that the term is notable, as it has been mentioned by a wide variety of sources in publication and in television, both liberal and conservative. The aims of WP:NOTOPINION and WP:NEO are not applicable here. The article is balanced. There is a wide range of point of views and sources. The term is used for reflection and by critics as the article states. As far as WP:NEO (if this is considered to be a neologism, which no source calls it), the majority of the articles cite what reliable sources "say about the term or concept." They are "not just sources that use the term." Therefore, it does not fail WP:NEO either. This is not going to be obsolete. It has been widespread usage from 2016 to present. --JimmyPiersall (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump or other appropriate target. Stand-alone stub article. The term might not be obsolete in the short term, however when another president gets in the White House (at the very latest in 6 + something years, though probably before then), the term will not be used anymore. Therefore, per WP:RECENTISM, and in the spirit of WP:NOTNEWS, there is no need for us to cover every appearance of this term or op-ed about it in a separate article. The similar section about Bush is in the rticle Public image of George W. Bush - given all the controversy Trump has generated, I wonder why such a corresponding article has not yet been created. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A small one apparently did exist until March 2017: see WP:Articles for deletion/Public image of Donald Trump (2nd nomination). The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to either Donald Trump or Protests against Donald Trump, to which Criticism of Donald Trump redirects. (On a side note, I'm not really sure that redirect is appropriate - there has been plenty of criticism of Trump that wouldn't qualify as protests.) A merge is definitely appropriate here, but I'm not sure the appropriate target. If this AfD closes with consensus to merge but no consensus on the target, discussion should continue on the talk page. Smartyllama (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Why? Nineteen sources. And counting. If we delete an article with so many high quality sources we'll have to delete 20% of the pedia. Yes, it's a stub now, but with nineteen sources it can be expanded nicely. – Lionel^(talk) 06:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't just a matter of WP:SIGCOV it is also a question on whether this is a valid split or no. So far, this seems like a term of minor importance, with maybe lot of documented usage but little significant long-term impact (or encyclopedic value) - so a section in a properly titled article would be more appropriate. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. – Lionel^(talk) 06:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 🖋 13:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing the significant, in-depth coverage here for this neologism. Being randomly mentioned in passing in various articles or op-eds is insufficient. Neutrality^talk 02:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every time the US president is a Republican, conservative pundits always try to create a narrative that any opposition to his agenda whatsoever is motivated by inherent insanity rather than moral or legal principle. The existence of this phrase could certainly be noted with one or two sentences in the relevant other articles, but it is not a notable concept that requires a standalone article in its own right — it's just a straight revival of the "Bush Derangement Syndrome" rhetoric of a decade ago, and it was garbage rhetoric even then. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable term. Sources are rubbish and/or op-eds. Similar sourcing can be found for 'Obama Derangement Syndrome', yet I think everyone here would find a Wikipedia article for that a complete waste of space. That is to say, unless either 'Obama Derangement Syndrome' or 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' develop into phenomena of detailed and significant coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lionelt. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This shouldn't be an article about Donald Trump because this is about people who react to Trump, not about Trump himself. Trump is a huge topic and it makes sense to split off topics that aren't about him directly. When you look this term up on Google News[18] and Google Scholar,[19] you can see this is already a widespread but very specific term. I looked through the sources that were already cited in the article. National Review defines Trump Derangement Syndrome as "disgust at his manner and his tweets such that all distinctions between him and genuine villains is lost."[20] That seems to be the generally accepted definition of the term, which is what's described in the other sources. The New Yorker has an article about the subject.[21] The Washington Post has several articles that discuss the topic.[22][23][24][25][26] Even conservative outlets like Fox News have discussed it in print[27][28] and even had a segment of it on TV.[29] Newspapers all over the country have published articles that include significant discussion about the phenomenon. It's discussed in scholarly articles in English[30][31] and French.[32] The article passes WP:GNG for significant discussion in independent sources over time. Lonehexagon (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how this topic could be part of an article about Criticism of Donald Trump, but as @Smartyllama: pointed out, that redirects to Protests against Donald Trump, which is not appropriate for this article. I think the best outcome would be to make it so Protests against Donald Trump redirects to Criticism of Donald Trump, and this topic is included as a section of Criticism of Donald Trump. Lonehexagon (talk) 05:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even better: Make Criticism of Donald Trump a full article, and have Protests against Donald Trump be a summarized subsection there with a {{main article}} template to link to the main article - keeping both. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NEO; significant RS coverage not found. WP:TOOSOON per review of availalbe sources which are passing mentions and / or opinion pieces. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another symptom of the recentism bias Wikipedia suffers from, especially in regards to politics. Sure anyone could lazily say "easily passes GNG", but you are ignoring NOTNEWS, a fundamental policy, at the encyclopedia's own peril. Let us not forget policy just to get in a jab at Trump with an unnotable neologism.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are political operatives coming onto the fold such as that are making judgments about the article based on his or her opinion of conservatives. There is also the term "Clinton Crazies," which has its own article, that regards a term from the opposite political perspective. There are also weasel words being used to discredit sources such as "random," "rubbish," and "passing." Many of the sources refer to the term continually and are entire pieces about the syndrome. Yes, there was Bush Derangement syndrome, but if you want to start throwing your political opinions in, let's be honest. If Bush Derangement was a thing, it was nothing compared to Trump Derangement. As the sources show, liberals like Fareed have taken notice of it. Another political operative stated that Obama Derangement Sydrome received equal coverage, which is incorrect. An internet search of "Obama derangement syndrome" turns up many "Trump derangement syndrome" articles and does not have the backing of a variety of mainstream sources like Trump Derangement does with CNN, Fox News, Washington Post, National Review, New Yorker, Time, Forbes, Chicago Tribue, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Newsweek, Salon, and CBC ranging from 2016 to present. Just because one can throw around WP: articles, it doesn't mean they actually apply as I have pointed out specific cases earlier. JimmyPiersall (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. CNN, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Salon, Boston Herald, and many other reputable news sources all have published articles in which "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is the subject. These are, of course, not "rubbish sources" and they clearly establish the notability of the subject no matter how much we wish it weren't so. ANDREVV (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sourcing is there, it just is. I mean, at the point when you get Max Boot asking [Am I suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome? Time for a self-audit?] in a nationally syndicated essay in the Washington Post, you have to recognize that whatever it is with Trump, so many of the rest of us are suffering from Trump derangement syndrome, that and Wikipedia ought to have an article defining it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should there also be Bush Derangement Syndrom and Obama Derangement Syndrome articles? Just google those terms and you'll find as many sources as Trump Derangement Syndrome has. I don't think the editors in this AFD realize that [INSERT PRESIDENT] "Derangement Syndrome" is just a general phrase for unfair/thoughtless criticism of a sitting president. The creation of such articles would just be weird forks for Criticism/Protests of President X articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Bush derangement syndrome.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher Derangement Syndrome redirects to the same section, with a few WP:RS for it there already. Here's another 2013 WP:RS for it, for the sake of discussion: [33]. And here are a few for "Hillary Derangement Syndrome": [34], [35], [36], [37]. The two presidential candidates in 2020, 2024, etc. will probably have the same running joke applied. One alternative to the above merge proposals would be to bring them all together as a section of Polarization (politics), rather than as a section of the George Bush article. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -This is recentism bias and fails WP:NEO. The article has more about Bush than Trump. Also, Trump lies more than two-thirds of the time he speaks(via PolitiFact), while telling the complete truth about 5% of the time. If there's a Trump derangement syndrome article, the many analysis done on Trump's derangement should be included. Dave Dial (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. "more about Bush than Trump" and the fact that Trump wouldn't know a fact if it bit him is irrelevant.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY, article has been cleaned up and improved. It was a stub that made a crudely worded assertion with a list of sources; it now gives a history and definitions of the term by a number of well-known writers. There is still lots of room for further improvement, but I have edited a lot of political NEOLOGISMS at AfD and I believe that it now passes WP:NEO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sourcing in the current version of the article indicates that nearly every major US news organization has written about the subject. It's notable. Maybe a case can be made for merging all the Hated Leader Derangement Syndrome articles into one article or for some other editorial option such as merging this one into one of the articles about Donald Trump, but outright deletion is certainly not the right action here. Peacock (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that deletion is ineligible. After sleeping on this, I am wondering whether the best course might be to ask Sandstein, closing editor of WP:Articles for deletion/Bush Derangement Syndrome (6th nomination), to give us access to the text of Bush Derangement Syndrome (6 AfDs, there must have been at least some well written, reliably sourced text in it,) to enable the creation of a new article to which this could be directed and within which use of this phrase to derogate Bush fils, Thatcher, Obama and Trump wold be covered.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2018 (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. Enigma^msg 19:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Jerez-López[edit]

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

Self promotional - not meeting any notability criteria. Language exaggerates achievements unsupported by references. PRehse (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has only primary sources and my own search didn't turn up the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. There's no indication of anything that meets the notability criteria for martial artists, MMA fighters, or any other SNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any sources of substance to support the many details we are presented with in this article, let alone get it up to GNG/BASIC. Sam Sailor 18:27, 23 May 2018 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ShixxNOTE[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Poorly sourced, no hint of notability found apart from product reviews. Kleuske (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will look for some sources later (other than those weak ones mentioned in the previous AfD, not much after a brief search so far), but the article reads like an advert (comments in the pictures are priceless...). Pavlor (talk) 09:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found three books where ShixxNOTE program is mentioned: "Implementing NAP and NAC Security Technologies", "Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Digital" and "Blackjacking: Security Threats to BlackBerry Devices, PDAs, and Cell". All three books are talking about bug overflow security flow in program. I as a developer of ShixxNOTE program immediately released security update when that bug was discovered by Luigi Auremma. This books are about security, networks, ports, how everything works and how person can use program like mine (before security update) to get access of other computer or other device. This is written in that books so you can not remove article about ShixxNOTE. You can just add that in the program previous versions there was security issue. So again I am against deletion of ShixxNOTE article. It is notable and it is on Wikipedia more than 10 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirola (talk • contribs) 11:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not even a passing mention (entry in list in all three books). Not broad enough coverage to estabilish notability. Pavlor (talk) 12:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable - I did attempt to find some sources to add to the page, but found zilch. A nicely made page that is wp:too soon or simply too obscure. 68.173.149.120 (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searches for sources indicate that this does not meet the inclusion criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (software) and the general notability guideline. Sam Sailor 18:21, 23 May 2018 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Karz[edit]

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

Beyond passing mentions, standard filmographies, and press-release fare, I can find nothing on him. Definitely nothing substantive or significant. See WP:MILL. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. An obvious autobiography created by an SPA registered account and an SPA IP. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree, zero indications of notability, fails WP:BASIC. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:23, 18 May 2018 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mahasarakham Rajabhat University Stadium[edit]

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

Does not meet the WP:General notability guideline. Paul_012 (talk) 10:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GEOFEAT. No indication the stadium has received significant third-party coverage. Fenix down (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Delete votes are lazy WP:JNN arguments. The article clearly is lacking sources, but that does not make an article non-notable. Quidster4040 (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Quidster4040, I manually went through pages of search results WP:BEFORE nominating the article for AfD. I did not find any in-depth coverage by a third party reliable source. You're citing WP:JNN, but don't appear to be making any argument that demonstrates the subject's notability either. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2018 (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. Enigma^msg 19:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mahanakorn UNI Stadium[edit]

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

Does not meet the WP:General notability guideline. Paul_012 (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD resulted in no consensus due to its once being the home stadium of a Thai Premier League team, but notability is not inherited, and there is no in-depth coverage of the stadium itself to satisfy the GNG. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GEOFEAT. No indication the stadium has received significant third-party coverage. Fenix down (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2018 (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. Enigma^msg 19:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Physical Education Samut Sakhon Stadium[edit]

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

Does not meet the WP:General notability guideline. Paul_012 (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD resulted in no consensus due to its once being the home stadium of a Thai Premier League team, but notability is not inherited, and there is no in-depth coverage of the stadium itself to satisfy the GNG. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GEOFEAT. No indication the stadium has received significant third-party coverage. Fenix down (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2018 (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. Enigma^msg 19:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Physical Education Bangkok Campus Stadium[edit]

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

Does not meet the WP:General notability guideline. Paul_012 (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD resulted in no consensus due to an incorrect statement in the article giving a capacity of 20,000. Th article has since been edited to show 1,500. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GEOFEAT. No indication the stadium has received significant third-party coverage. Fenix down (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2018 (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. Enigma^msg 19:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coke–Chamlong Samoewong Stadium[edit]

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

Does not meet the WP:General notability guideline. Paul_012 (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD resulted in no consensus due to its once being the home stadium of a Thai Premier League team, but notability is not inherited, and there is no in-depth coverage of the stadium itself to satisfy the GNG. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GEOFEAT. No indication the stadium has received significant third-party coverage. Fenix down (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted G4 and then recreated as a redirect. ansh 666 03:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Madison Project (A cappella group)[edit]

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

fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG all the sources are affiliated. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claims of significance or importance. Never charted. No awards. No other commercial success. Nothing but YouTube, Spotify, and download sites. This articel is from someone who 'thinks' they should have an article in Wikipedia. Totally fails GNG and WP:BAND. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've found no significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources per WP:GNG, only directory listings, blogs, and student newspapers that verify existence. Note that The Madison Project was redirected to List of collegiate a cappella groups per the previous deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Madison Project only one month ago. There is no need to create redundant redirects, so delete this one. Creator Cre8ivecranium, please do not recreate deleted/redirected articles unless you can provide evidence they meet notability standards. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2018 (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. May 19, 2018 Bbb23 (talk | contribs | block) deleted page PDK Films (Mass deletion of pages added by Personale per G5) Enigma^msg 19:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PDK Films[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG there is not sufficient indepth coverage independent RS to back up notability Dom from Paris (talk) 08:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Pick 'n' Mix. J04n(talk page) 11:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per Sempre Amore[edit]

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

Relies too much on primary sources. Fails WP:NMUSIC due to no claims of notability being established in the article. Kirbanzo (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now per [[WP:NSINGLE]]: charting single that I have added two {{cite book}}s to, so more sources can be presumed to exist. And they are needed. Sam Sailor 12:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hung consensus...needs more !votes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — F R ⁺ 06:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as subject fails WP:NSINGLE. It does not meet any of the listed criteria. Long time since those were listed in an AfD so we might be forgetting them: Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries or reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work.

If anything, it's too soon. -The Gnome (talk) 10:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Not influential. Not significant. Not fun to listen to either (just checked it out on YouTube). Chisme (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to the album article Pick 'n' Mix--would just add chart position there. Or at least redirect, given this article is 10 years old. Per WP:NSONGS: Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2018 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Monty M. Wyche[edit]

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

Fails WP:JUDGE. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable. The coverage in the sources cited in the article, and in GBooks, satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hung consensus...Needs more !votes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — F R ⁺ 06:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local judge who does not pass WP:JUDGE. Sources do not establish WP:GNG notability, and I couldn't find anything else making this person notable. agtx 17:19, 21 May 2018 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie McAlister[edit]

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

A four-sentence stub that's been a four-sentence stub since 2004. Sources exist since he was a town mayor in the mid-naughts, but I don't see anything that stands out that's not WP:MILL mentions of him as a mayor or any articls about him, with the exception for an article about his being elected with multiple sclerosis here: [38]. I can't find any other articles about the subject specifically, and am not even sure if this is a living person. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 06:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SportingFlyer He was mayor of Cary, unless you see something promotional I would assume it was notable at the time and got significant coverage. ChalkDrawings33 (talk) 06:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Mayors don't get assumed notability - they must pass WP:GNG, which I haven't seen here. We typically keep for larger cities because WP:GNG is easily met. SportingFlyer talk 20:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While it's certainly true that Wikipedia articles have to be written neutrally and non-promotionally, that is not in and of itself the only condition that an article has to pass to get kept: the subject also has to actually pass a notability standard — which this article does not demonstrate that Ernie McAlister does, because the notability standard for mayors is not just "he exists" — and he actually has to pass WP:GNG on the article's referenceability to reliable source coverage about him in real media — which this article does not demonstrate that Ernie McAlister does, because the only "source" provided here at all is a blurb in the university alumni newsletter of his own alma mater, which is not a notability-assisting source. We do not keep articles about people who fail our notability standards just because the writing isn't blatantly advertorial — an article lives or dies on its sourceability, not just its writing tone. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mayors are not default notable, and there is nothing beyond that he was mayor said in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's some local coverage, but this fails GNG/BASIC. Sam Sailor 18:11, 23 May 2018 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alireza Gholami[edit]

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

Notability is not shown. N~~ight~~D 05:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kaura clan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:NOT. Lacks notability, fails WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced, no evidence of notability. Ajf773 (talk) 05:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing there to warrant a article. FITINDIA 12:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ashana Chevli[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and general notability standards for sportspeople/athletes. The article linked on the article does not mention the subject of the article at all. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 03:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sub-junior national aquatic games are nowhere near "the highest level". It's either too soon or not enough. Jacona (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even remotely close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2016 TVB Anniversary Awards[edit]

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

An event is not notable, fails WP:GNG B dash (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per WP:SNOWBALL. The 2017 version was already deleted. Emass100 (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball is not a speedy delete reason. You should just give a simple delete !vote, rather than an invalid speedy delete reason! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett:, hi admin, your fellow admins have to close 4 such pages 3 as delete and 1 as no consensus, and here we have 6 more afds, this is how screwed this can be, basically there are awards of the same from 2006 to 2017, all are copy and paste kind except content and each was hauled individually to Afd. The conclusion given for delete is userify to merge if needed after 2 relist. I don't understand voters and nominators nowadays in Afd causing so much problems Quek157 (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They should have all been on the same delete ticket, and it would have saved quite a bit of debate! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett: which is WHY I kept repeating this at the few Afd 2005, 2006,2007,2017, and now we have 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016. --Quek157 (talk) 11:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please make user:B dash aware of this busy work! I only came here to see what sort of thing that B dash was doing, and I voted in a couple of AFDs. (but only commented here!)Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett:, is not don't know, but just run. To nominator, you are not a new page reviewer or whatsoever with heavy load that cannot monitor Afd but please take ownership of your Afd. This is really so much of work. To admin, thanks for the view and I replied on your talkpage. --Quek157 (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett: I don't understand. What is the point of WP:SNOWBALL if it's not to justify Speedy delete/Speedy keep? Emass100 (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball is just an early result, normally for keep, not a speedy delete. It is possible that an WP:IAR delete may happen early, but there is no reason for ignoring rules here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per all the rest, copying game resume. not keen for relist merge or whatsoever. actually quite wp:snow after the past few afd of very similar pages. it's wp:snow to argue for a keep. but not for speedy, it can only be for keep or delete. Quek157 (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and noiminator, do you have anymore ??? Quek157 (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, thats all. --B dash (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@B dash:, sure the best actress, actor in the template don't need? --Quek157 (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They can be kept. --B dash (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

okay, take your word. --Quek157 (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2015 TVB Anniversary Awards[edit]

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

An event is not notable, fails WP:GNG B dash (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per WP:SNOWBALL. The 2017 version was already deleted. Emass100 (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per all the rest, copying game resume. not keen for relist merge or whatsoever. Quek157 (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2014 TVB Anniversary Awards[edit]

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

An event is not notable, fails WP:GNG B dash (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per WP:SNOWBALL. The 2017 version was already deleted. Emass100 (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per all the rest, copying game resume. not keen for relist merge or whatsoever. Quek157 (talk) 09:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2013 TVB Anniversary Awards[edit]

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

An event is not notable, fails WP:GNG B dash (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per WP:SNOWBALL. The 2017 version was already deleted. Emass100 (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per all the rest, copying game resume. not keen for relist merge or whatsoever. Quek157 (talk) 09:47, 16 May 2018 (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 Electoral Commission of South Australia. Mz7 (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Mousley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Despite surviving AfD in 2006, and having a notability tag since 2011, there is nothing of note here. Yes she has a bit of news coverage, but it is purely in her role as electoral commissioner, and almost entirely duplicated from Electoral Commission of South Australia and South Australian Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission. It is claimed that she is the first woman to hold the role, and I don't doubt that's true, but I don't see how that gives her notability. In short, just a public servant doing her job, and everything about her job is at the aforementioned articles. Adpete (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Electoral Commission of South Australia. The subject is essentially a single event in their own right, and while they have many mentions in sources, the significant majority are just them doing their job. However, the subject I believe is notable in the context of the activities of the commission and they have made an impact on the commission, including being the first women head, but notability is not inherited. The current article content would fit very nicely into Electoral Commission of South Australia and further there are many more references which would support more in-depth content for the work and contribution the subject has made to the commission and the merge hence also removes any notability inheritance and single event concerns. The subject is definitely a likely search term. Aoziwe (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a redirect to Electoral Commission of South Australia would be a good solution. I've moved the "first female commissioner" sentence to there. Adpete (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Especially given the outcome of the previous discussion, I would appreciate a bit more participation before we redirect this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above discussion. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Aoziwe. The key information bits are: her name, being the first woman in the role and how long she held the position. Those have already all been moved, thus a formal merging seems unneeded. It would probably make sense to improve Electoral Commission of South Australia by adding all the electoral commissioners it's had, but that's a quality goal irrelevant here. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per everybody above. This is a role that could get a person an article if it could be sourced well enough to get her over WP:GNG for it, but not one that's so "inherently" notable that the mere fact that she held it would exempt her from having to have enough reliable source coverage to clear GNG. But two of the five references here are primary source documents from the electoral commission itself, which are not notability-assisting sources because they're not independent of her, and one is not about her but merely features her giving brief soundbite in an article about something else — while the two that are actually about her are just the initial announcement of her appointment, and the announcement of her resignation, which is not enough to get her over GNG if they're the only genuinely substantive sources that can be shown because there's no ongoing coverage of her work in the role. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. SportingFlyer talk 00:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

M.C. Keegan-Ayer[edit]

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

County politician, doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN, all coverage is routine. Rusf10 (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteLocal politician with no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Apart from the official government listing there isn't much coverage to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and of course, WP:POLITICIAN. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Local politician has received significant and ongoing coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every single person who holds office at the county level always gets purely local media coverage in their own local media — so that coverage is not enough to make a county councillor notable all by itself, because if that were all it took then there would never be any such thing as a non-notable county councillor anymore. But county councillors, in reality, are not accepted as automatically notable just because they exist — to actually get a county councillor into Wikipedia just for being a county councillor per se, the coverage has to nationalize to a degree that marks him or her out as plainly more notable than most other county councillors in most other counties. But the media coverage shown here is purely local and routine, which is not enough to demonstrate that she's of any wider encyclopedic interest. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails N. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable politician with the usual local coverage. I see nothing that distinguishes her from thousands of other local politicians. Papaursa (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 05:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just your average local politician, no notability. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:13, 22 May 2018 (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. Although numerically there is more support to keep, the delete opinions are more in line with policy. WP:FOOTYN, which applies to teams as opposed to WP:FOOTY, is an essay and can not supercede WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 15:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FK Dobrinja[edit]

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

Author contest PROD without any reason, but still fail WP:FOOTYN Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It plays in the Kantonalna liga Sarajevo - B grupa as per this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Judging from the lack of sources currently found, the club fails the general notability guideline as well as any presumption of notability per the essay Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability. Sam Sailor 10:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The club played in 1999-2000 Bosnian cup. According tro your own rules this should be enough to meet notability. Linhart (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:FOOTYN has played in the 1999–2000 Bosnia and Herzegovina Football Cup a national cup.Was checking this good work by Linhart.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY as a Google search of Serbo-Croatian language sources brings up local secondary sources. SportingFlyer talk 03:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NFOOTY is part of WP:ATHLETE and is irrelevant here as it specifically says "It is not intended that this guideline should apply to sports clubs and teams". And we are not anywhere near a GNG pass, cf. the source assessment below. Sam Sailor 14:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:FOOTYN then. My mistake. SportingFlyer talk 17:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What kind of stupid rule is All teams that have played in the national cup are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. (from WP:FOOTYN)? According to Bosnia and Herzegovina Football Cup, clubs from entire country are competing in the Cup, and as far as I know similar rule existed for the Yugoslav Cup – every club gets a chance, but bottom-league clubs only provide a small seed into late rounds, when higher-ranking leagues join in. Yeah, they made it to the round of 32 once, but that does not come across as a particularly notable achievement. I have no opinion whether they satisfy GNG otherwise, thus no !vote for me. FWIW, their stadium was featured at [39] incidentally just 5 days ago, but that's more or less just run-of-the mill local coverage. No such user (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:FOOTYN per the excellent research above. Smartyllama (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have tried to find sources on this little neighborhood club with 150 members, and I have yet to find 1 single, reliable source that speaks about the club in any detail. The club is currently scraping the bottom as no. 8 and last in the local League of Sarajevo Canton (Group B) that is down on the fourth level of Bosnia and Herzegovinan football.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
"Eldin Balihodžić - Stoper". FK DOBRINJA (in Bosnian). Retrieved 17 May 2018.	Club website	Propably		✘ No
"FK DOBRINJA". FK Dobrinja (in Bosnian). 11 August 2017. Archived from the original on 11 August 2017. Retrieved 17 May 2018.	Club website	Propably		✘ No
fsks.ba (15 May 2018). "Kantonalna liga Sarajevo - B grupa". FSKS (in Bosnian). Archived from the original on 15 May 2018. Retrieved 17 May 2018.	Football Ass. of Canton Sarajevo	Presumably	Pure statistics	✘ No
"Želimir Vidović Keli je živio za svoje Sarajevo". Klix.ba (in Bosnian). 17 May 2012. Archived from the original on 20 May 2012. Retrieved 17 May 2018.	Bylined article, internet portal	Presumably, yes	Trivial mention, article is about Želimir Vidović, not the club	✘ No
"Udruženje Bordo prijatelji 1946: Gradsko vijeće nije prihvatilo naš prijedlog". Sport Centar (in Bosnian). 17 May 2018. Archived from the original on 17 May 2018. Retrieved 17 May 2018.		Presumably, yes	Trivial mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

WP:FOOTYN is repeatedly invoked as a "keep" argument here based on the team's supposed participation in 1 single match almost 20 years ago in the 1999–2000 Bosnia and Herzegovina Football Cup. I say "supposed", because that fact is currently only supported by a reference to a user forum on SportsSport.ba.

But FOOTYN is a shortcut to the project-specific essay Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability. It has not been under community scrutiny, and is in no way a free pass to inclusion. It makes the assumption, that All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. And passing WP:GNG does require verifiable evidence. I hope that sombody can find better sources. In which case I will gladly change my !vote. Sam Sailor 14:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NB: according to hr:Nogometni kup Bosne i Hercegovine (and by careful reading of 1999–2000 Bosnia and Herzegovina Football Cup), at the time the country did not even have the unified cup and league; the three entities that constituted them each had a league and a cup on their own, and only Croat and Bosniak clubs (~half of the field) played the final rounds. FK Dobrinja only made it to the best 32 of the Bosniak part, which makes that achievement even smaller. No such user (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, after all. Run-of-the-mill low-league city neighborhood club, sources on par, fails GNG. No such user (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When a club passes WP:FOOTYN after all, it's wisest to withdraw. gidonb (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous. A WP:SNG, which is WP:FOOTYN, cannot override project-wide WP:GNG policy. Even if taken at face value, it says that the team is assumed to meet WP:N criteria, which has been demonstrated false by Sam Sailor and myself, the only ones who exercised due diligence to actually search for sources. No such user (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Donald[edit]

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

County politician, doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN, all coverage is routine Rusf10 (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local politician with no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Apart from the official government listing there isn't much coverage to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and of course, WP:POLITICIAN. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Local politician has received significant and ongoing coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every single person who holds office at the county level always gets purely local media coverage in their own local media — so that coverage is not enough to make a county councillor notable all by itself, because if that were all it took then there would never be any such thing as a non-notable county councillor anymore. But county councillors, in reality, are not accepted as automatically notable just because they exist — to actually get a county councillor into Wikipedia just for being a county councillor per se, the coverage has to nationalize to a degree that marks him out as plainly more notable than most other county councillors in most other counties. But apart from the government primary sources that don't assist notability at all, there isn't a single media citation here that isn't to Frederick's own local newspaper, which is not enough to demonstrate that he's of any wider interest beyond the purely local. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails N...^{Atsme📞📧} 18:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 00:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I keep looking for notability for these council members but not seeing any here. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Chmelik[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN, has only received routine coverage. Rusf10 (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteLocal politician with no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Apart from the official government listing there isn't much coverage to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and of course, WP:POLITICIAN. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Local politician has received significant and ongoing coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article has 36 citations in all. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every single person who holds office at the county level always gets purely local media coverage in their own local media — so that coverage is not enough to make a county councillor notable all by itself, because if that were all it took then there would never be any such thing as a non-notable county councillor anymore. But county councillors, in reality, are not accepted as automatically notable just because they exist — to actually get a county councillor into Wikipedia just for being a county councillor per se, the coverage has to nationalize to a degree that marks him out as plainly more notable than most other county councillors in most other counties. But apart from the government primary sources that don't assist notability at all, there isn't a single media citation here that isn't to Frederick's own local newspaper, which is not enough to demonstrate that he's of any wider interest beyond the purely local. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails N. How many of these local politician articles created by this same user? I count 3 so far....Jerry Donald, and M.C. Keegan-Ayer. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At least one more that was already deleted a couple of weeks ago for the same reasons, too. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable local politician who fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 00:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NPOL. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Knight[edit]

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

Non-notable, no reliable secondary sources, appears to be purely promotional in nature. Amsgearing (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Knight is an important figure in mental health and has been featured on radio and mentioned by Australian political figures. While these are difficult to cite as online sources, the encyclopedic relevance still remains. He is certainly relevant to the political scene, along with mental health treatment and as an author. I have added another reference and I'm sure others will continue to do so. Terristevens (talk 01:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC) — Terristevens (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If he is cited on radio and by politicians then you should be able to find a reasonable amount of independent online media from those sources about him. Please add them to the article if you can find them, as there is nothing showing up that supports him crossing WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO NealeFamily (talk) 05:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Maxim article certainly looks loke very substantial cpverage pf him and his work. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Maxim "article" is a blurb. There's barely any text in it; most of it is just a selection from his book. Wikipedia requires "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." There's no "significant coverage" and the Maxim article is 1 source - I don't see "multiple reliable sources." Amsgearing (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, he's an author who is featured significantly in Australia and has been of interest for some time, including as a mental health advocate (non-medical) of some repute. There is certainly diverse enough coverage from national publications (cited) and is a relevant enough public figure to merit inclusion. Terristevens (talk) 02:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC) — Terristevens (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Respectfully, you already voted above, and all of your arguments don't absolve a subject of the need for significant coverage to merit an article. He just doesn't have any. The first two sources don't even qualify as reliable secondary sources. I searched for more, and I can't find any. Amsgearing (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is valid, and unbiased. Yours doesn't seem to be.The first article is taken from a national publicaton and Maxim is national with global presence. Terristevens (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC) — Terristevens (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

With all due respect, the opposite of what you said is true. You're a major contributor to this article and clearly not unbiased. I happened upon it while surfing wikipedia and noticed that there's very little material in reliable sources on the subject, so I'm about as unbiased as can be. You said "The first article is taken from a national publicaton" - bullshit. It's from something called intheblack.com, which appears to be a startup online publication attempting to make a name for itself as a website dedicated to ... something. There's no mentions of it in other publications anywhere. It's an island, and it's nowhere near the level of "reliable secondary source." So please stop with the hyperbole and attempts to paint Rhys Knight as someone who's received significant coverage. He's just not. Amsgearing (talk) 05:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to your opinion, as am I. Please tone down the language and I would ask you to remove the swearing; this is a debate, not a hostile discussionTerristevens (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With the utmost respect towards you and your edits here, it's not an "opinion" that there's no reliable secondary coverage of this guy - it's a fact. It's also not an opinion that both of his "books" are self-published - they are. There's no publisher listed for "Litte White Helpers". It appears more and more obvious that this article is an attempt at self-promotion; that last bit, for the record, is just my opinion. Amsgearing (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete, obviously promotional (the link to buy his books at amazon is a dead giveaway); WP:TOOSOON. Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, link deleted.Terristevens (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have searched and after removing his own sites, blogs, social media, and book selling sites, there is almost nothing left. There is seems to be nowhere near sufficient IRS WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG. WP:TOOSOON perhaps. Aoziwe )(talk) 05:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC
Delete Terristevens Recommend rewriting the article by deleting the text box and picture, and changing to one line about the book he published and that he is a mental health advocate. Stating that will give you the presumed good intentions and people won't try to delete the article, as most people here have no idea what is notable in Austalia. As it stands right now you basically wrote your own argument for why it should be deleted by saying that his second book isn't published, so even the publishers don't think he's notable. ChalkDrawings33 (talk) 06:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, more than happy to do that if that's the best course of action.Terristevens (talk) 07:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There’s scarcely anything online about him, which for a current author is a clear indication that notability criteria aren’t met. But there’s this and it’s a copy of this article. I have no way of knowing whether the Wikipedia article came first (which would be fine) or whether the book review was done first (in which case we’d be dealing with a copyvio). Couldn’t find the review on archive sites. Schwede 66 15:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of notability. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in NZ media to support notability NealeFamily (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines Shritwod (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Cann[edit]

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

Article about an actor who has clearly had a wide number of quite minor roles, but not multiple major roles which would get him over Wikipedia's WP:NACTOR notability threshold. There are no examples of significant coverage about Cann in WP:RS. Time for article to go. Sionk (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sionk - funny but I disagree with you completely. I think it does meet WP:GNG with that many roles versus so many notable actors, I just think it fails WP:PROMO for the way it's written. ChalkDrawings33 (talk) 06:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...though if he's had many small roles over his career, it makes him a busy person, rather than a notable one :) Sionk (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We are not IMDb, people are not notable for lots of insignificant roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2018 (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.