Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 September	11 September >

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 speedy keep. WP:SKCRIT#2. Marsellus W, please read WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Or I'm reporting you the next time. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 08:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Viktorovich Maltsev[edit]

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

Discussions were closed by the participant Wumbolo apparently related to the author of the article. Decisions should be made by sysop Marsellus W (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know for how long we should endure this. I never came across Wumbolo before. Please refer to previous discussion. Aidayoung (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC) I was curious about Marsellus W. Apparently, his account was created for one single edit in 2017: removing a prod in an article on a book on South African gangs written by Jonny Steinberg [[1]]. South African gangs are mentioned in passing in my article (I am a graduate student in religious studies and I focused more on Maltsev's theories of religion). I notice, however, that the book "The Number" is an account of South African gangs in competition with Maltsev's own books on the subject. Having removed the prod from the article on Steinberg's book, Marsellus never made any other contribution to Wikipedia, until he resurfaced pursuing deletion of this article. I am well aware that the motivations of Marsellus have nothing to do with the rules on deletion. However, since Marsellus accuses everybody arguing against deletion of being "affiliated" or having vested interests, a comment on his own interests IMHO is not out of topic Aidayoung (talk) 07:40, 11 September 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. Tone 20:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phitsanulok City F.C.[edit]

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

fails projet criteria in WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG and WP:NORG Dom from Paris (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - amateur club that has never played in the national cup, fails GNG and NFOOTY. 21.colinthompson (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stated above, fails too many criteria. Govvy (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how substantial is the mention in the Thai fourfourtwo article? SportingFlyer talk 23:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's three paragraphs introducing the team and their origins, from an overview piece profiling 17 Amateur League teams from the lower Northern Region. The coverage by ThaiLive.net[2][3] is more in-depth, but I have no idea who they are. The site doesn't list any publisher or editorial info, so probably can't be considered a reliable source. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per norm. Notability guidelines is not satisfied. ShunDream (talk) 19:54, 17 September 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. WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice in recreating at some point in future. Tone 20:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Česánek[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY he must have played 200 games for the Tipsport liga and fails GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 22:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can I ask you a question about this rules? Why is Slovak Extraliga second in this rules and Czech Extraliga or better example Czechoslovak First Ice Hockey League, where played Slovak and Czech teams are first in this rules, where is enough that player played one or more games in league. RafaelUk (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I actually kind of agree with this. The way things are set up currently, I would have no problem dropping the Czech league down to Tier II of WP:NHOCKEY. I've done some cursory searches on players who played only a handful of games in the Czech league, and I'm barely finding anything outside of stat sites. Granted, I don't speak Czech, but there really doesn't appear to be all that much media presence in the Czech Republic at all, outside of Prague. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'll take a moment to answer the question above before I give my rationale for deletion. The simplest answer comes down to a combination of quality of play in the league and reliable media coverage of players. This player clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY, given their age it is likely also a case of WP:TOOSOON. Deadman137 (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. Playing at the junior world championships is insufficient to show notability. At best the article was created WP:TOOSOON. Papaursa (talk) 18:22, 16 September 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. Tone 20:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Ballinger[edit]

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

An article on a political candidate for state office; the article is extremely promotional. Insufficient coverage; refs include things like a 40 under 40 in Knoxville feature, republished press releases, and mundane announcements. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I see no independent WP:RS. Agree that it appears to be WP:PROMO. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NPOL and no other claims to notability. Article also seems to be little more than a campaign brochure. AusLondonder (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they haven't won yet — but this makes no credible claim that she has preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy, cites nowhere near enough reliable source coverage to credibly support the notion that her candidacy is somehow more notable than most other people's candidacies, and is indeed written far more like a campaign brochure than a neutral or objective encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NPOL regarding candidates. My colleagues, esp. Bearcat have taken the words right out of my mouth on this one. Bkissin (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 06:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Attorney running for a seat in the state senate. delete WP:MILL unelected candidate, fails WP:NPOL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been flagged for speedy deletion under section G11, G11 is defined as Unambiguous advertising or promotion,

This article was not intended to be promotional in nature but merely informative to the public, the author believes that this article covers a "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage", in accordance with policies defined by [|Wikipedia Guidelines for Notability, Politicians and judges] This article was written with intent to provide critical and important public information about a person involved in a key state political race. The author believes this person to meet these criteria. There are many news articles which qualify as reliable source including [Knoxville News Sentinel] [Knoxville News Sentinel article 2] [Knoxville Mercury] [Tennessee Journal] [Washington Times] Jamie Ballinger is also a significant figure of state political importance because of the fact that she is a female candidate running for a state legislature in a state with less than 15% female representation. This importance is also recognized and cited by [Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee ] [for Tennessee's future]. Please remove the speedy deletion request and give me [The author] 24 - 48 hours hours to make the article a more objective encyclopedia article. I have only done a few article's and I am still learning how to make great Wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggorywiley (talk • contribs) 17:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the "major local political figures" criterion, NPOL #2, is for officeholders at the municipal level of office, such as mayors and city councillors. It does not apply to not yet elected candiates for any office — it is for holders of important local political offices at the city or county levels, and nobody else. Secondly, providing information about as yet unelected candidates, who are not already notable for some other reason besides being candidates, is not Wikipedia's role — our job is to maintain articles about holders of important political offices, not everybody who ever stood as a candidate for one. And thirdly, whether you "intended" this to be promotional or not, the writing tone that you used is very promotional and not even remotely encyclopedic. Bearcat (talk) 20:50, 14 September 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. Tone 20:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Veena World[edit]

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

Promotional article, apparently written to emphasis the roles of specific individuals. ; the references are the usual PR or disguised PR. DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete i agree with DGG. There is no (non PR/like) significant coverage. Most of the content of article is written from a promotional perspective, both for the individual and the company. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Non-notable.No significant coverage except in form of typical biz-deal-notes and PR.∯WBG^converse 13:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial coverage and some passing mentions. Kraose (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages or a platform for promotion. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:48, 16 September 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. Tone 20:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NFL standings[edit]

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

WP:OR, not to mention confusing for users who may be looking for actual NFL standings. Skudrafan1 (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Skudrafan1 (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NLIST, unsourced. If it was really a full list of NFL standings going back to 1920, it would include all of the defunct NFL franchises. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOR and WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it definitely needs to be edited (all teams included) and sourced, but it is clearly source-able material. We can find multiple sources for the records of each franchise including the defunct franchise, they are published in numerous reliable sources, and the subject mater is absurdly notable. This is an editing issue and not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS or redefine, rename, and and properly source article to meet WP:LISTN. The content of the list article does not accurately correspond to the subject it is covering. It is not standings, it is the "List of overall NFL team season-by-season records" or "List of cumulative NFL team season records". Standings refer to where a team "stands" within the league at a given time, but they are never listed by all-time records. Standings are only used in-season, not all-time. As in, there are no sources that I know of that would claim the Cleveland Browns are the 11th best all-time team in the NFL (as of the 2016 update of this article). If the sources do existing comparing the overall records of the NFL franchises (not just that the team has an all-time win-loss record, that is a team specific not league-specific subject, and that would make this list be WP:OR thru WP:SYNTH), then keep and rename the article. Yosemiter (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons posted by other users above. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sort of interesting, but pretty clearly from the land of WP:NOTSTATS. Carrite (talk) 06:24, 17 September 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 unilaterally moved to draftspace. At this time withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 23:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Planetboom[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BAND, WP:GNG, coverage in secondary sources appears to be routine, and is circumscribed to Christian music publications which may not pass WP:IND Rosguill^talk 19:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page's creator has moved the article to draftspace following a conversation on my talk page. I'm uncertain what protocol is in this situation but figured I should update this page. Rosguill^talk 19:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been userified and so the AfD should be withdrawn. I was borderline keep. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw proposal per above Rosguill^talk 20:27, 11 September 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. Expanding a little on this since it was a contentious discussion: it is fairly obvious that this individual does not pass NPOL. However, the claims to notability rest on GNG rather than NPOL, so really discussion of NPOL is of little relevance. Furthermore; NPOL and GNG are independent. A failure to meet NPOL does not necessarily mean that all coverage of related to elections and politics must be discounted (though BLP1E may apply). With respect to local sources: there is no guideline preventing their use. Common sense says that a source with a very limited audience (such as a county newspaper, or a small-town publication) is likely to give disproportionate attention to items of local interest, and as such, coverage in a local source may not be useful in determining notability. That is an argument I would give serious weight to when considering the Tuscaloosa County Register (if such even exists): applied to the Boston Globe, a newspaper with the 25th largest circulation in the country and with 26 Pulitzer prizes, this argument is week. Finally, a number of scholarly sources and book sources have been provided, and not refuted. In sum, there is consensus that this individual meets GNG. Vanamonde (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Sullivan Alioto[edit]

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

After a thorough search, the only articles about her are about her failed Senate candidacy, her husband, and her relationship with ex-congressman Barney Frank. She clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG and has never held a major elected office, so she also fails WP:NPOL. Failed Senate candidacies are almost never notable unless they receive extensive national coverage beyond what is expected of them, which Alioto didn't. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 18:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 18:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 18:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 18:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has received significant coverage in The Boston Globe (The Sullivan 'girl' now has clout and a batting average to prove it. Cohen, Muriel. Boston Globe. January 27, 1977) and Barney Frank: The Story of America's Only Left-handed, Gay, Jewish Congressman - Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't suffice for WP:GNG. The Boston Globe article is local news, which, while it does count, isn't sufficient. GNG typically requires national coverage. The Barney Frank source only mentions her, which also doesn't suffice for GNG. Passing mentions aren't considered significant coverage. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 20:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG makes no mention of local news not counting. The Barney Frank source covers her for 3 pages, which is more than a trivial mention, even if Sullivan is not main topic of the book. - Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Local news isn't verboten under GNG, but it isn't enough all by itself to make a person pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point User:Bearcat. And a source off of dating a closeted gay person doesn't make her notable. They just did extra coverage on her. She did nothing notable there. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but both of you are wrong. There is NOTHING in GNG that prohibits a local source from contributing to notability. We are looking for multiple, reliable sources with in-depth coverage and that can come from anywhere. If you want to change GNG standards, do so through the correct channels, not in an AfD discussion. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also People Magazine - Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That article is about the candidacy. Typically, articles stemming off of a failed candidacy aren't sufficient. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 23:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: ... and that aside, the Globe is scarcely a local free supermarket weekly. It's a media source with national reach and impact, and dozens of Pulitzers. Ravenswing 22:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Globe article archives aren't working for me, but as far as I know, those articles stem off of the candidacies. As I said above, articles from a failed candidacy aren't considered sufficient for GNG. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 23:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This online exhibit [4] put together by UMass Boston history & American Studies grad students has some interesting sourcing and puts the article subject in the larger historical context of Boston's desegregation, but you have to click through the sections on the upper right to go through it. Bakazaka (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to sources already introduced, Sullivan is discussed throughout Ronald Formisano's book Boston Against Busing (University of North Carolina Press, 2012) [5]. Passes WP:GNG. Bakazaka (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only coverage presented so far is fairly trivial (certainly not the "significant coverage" we require) and insufficient to demonstrate lasting notability. Notability is not inherited from her relationship with a notable person. Other coverage addresses her unsuccessful candidacy for political office, which is routine. She fails WP:NPOL as an unelected candidate for office who has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources" AusLondonder (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither serving on a school board nor being an unsuccessful candidate in a party primary hands a person an automatic inclusion freebie under WP:NPOL — and notability is not inherited, so she doesn't get to keep an article just because of who she dated or married in her personal life. Since school board trustees would be simply expected to get some local coverage in their local media, the fact that a couple such hits exist is not an automatic WP:GNG pass that exempts a school board trustee from having to pass NPOL by going on to serve in a more notable office — if a couple of local media hits were all it took to hand a school board trustee a notability pass, then there would never be any such thing as a non-notable school board trustee anymore, because every school board trustee everywhere could always show at least that much local media coverage. And hits #4, 5, 7 and 8 are just glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage about her ex-boyfriend and her husband, not sources that demonstrate that she has any independent notability in her own right. So no, nothing here is enough to make her notable. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The claims to notability are fairly week, but there do seem to be enough high quality sources here to meet GNG. She has gotten more coverage than any school board trustee, which would usually get only passing mentions in reliable sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, school board trustees would not usually get only passing mentions — every school board trustee everywhere could always cite at least as many detailed sources as are present here, because the local school board is a thing that local journalists routinely cover as a core part of their jobs. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, the only public educators on a state level that are notable are Superintendents of Public Instruction such as Tony Evers or John King Jr. before he became a U.S. Secretary of Education. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 22:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL. I'm not convinced the other sources shown pass WP:GNG as they're largely in the context of her election or the fact her notability is inherited from the people she's dated. SportingFlyer talk 23:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep part of the problem appears to be that during the most important part of her career, her name was Kathleen Sullivan. This is the name under which she chaired the Boston School Committee during the Boston busing desegregation. Coverage of her role has made her notable. Nom, appears have missed the fact that her marriage to Alioto came late. And to have misled other editors into thinking that this is about notability "inherited from the people she's dated." when, in fact, searches reveal that she was a national figure because that was the most notorious/notable/widely reported of America's school busing disputes. User:SportingFlyer, User:AusLondonder, User:Bearcat, any of you guys wanna revisit this one? Here's a search of the NYTimes on kathleen + sullivan + boston + busing [6]. Sullivan was the School Committee Chair who implemented school busing, Washington Post: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1977/12/07/boston-busing-stage-ii/e53ebc36-d24e-4b7a-9950-9a4b320941be/?utm_term=.9aaf73a9e6c0 Boston Busing, Stage II "What makes this remarkable is that the school committee is no longer the bastion of bitter-end anti-busers. Its chairman, Kathleen Sullivan, provides moderate leaderhip that accepts the inevitability if not the wisdom of court-ordered busing. She led all candidates for reelection Nov. 8, when Boston's voters elected the committee's first black (a moderate) and defeated its foremost anti-busing zealot. But the new school committee is treated no differently from the old school committee by Judge Garrity. He and what Miss Sullivan calls "those crazy experts of his" are not surrendering control...." E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't appear to be significant coverage of her - it's coverage of her in a role that we don't typically include people for under WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 01:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of people helped with desegregation of public transportation. That doesn't make them notable. The fact that there's not even 5 sources I could find with an in-depth description of Sullivan/Alioto's work on bus desegregation but I could find thousands on other people does not help this case. WP:GNG, to be sufficient, needs many in-depth, description, more-than-just-a-passing-mention sources. I don't see that. I read through the article and I know her last name wasn't Alioto for most of her life. I saw those articles. I don't believe she's notable. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ReddittAddict, Boston busing desegregation refers to the battle over whether to desegregate the Boston public schools. Sullivan's career has nothing to do with public transit. It is truly WP:DISRUPT to nominate an article for deletion without reading it and without performing WP:BEFORE that is, at a minimum, sufficient to enable you to understand that much. Please slow down and look more carefully.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, busing and "desegregation of public transportation" are not the same thing. Bakazaka (talk) 03:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sullivan's role in the Boston busing crisis is discussed in quite a few books in addition to the books already mentioned above, these include:

Charles Ogletree , All Deliberate Speed: Reflections on the First Half-Century of Brown v. Board of Education (W.W. Norton & Company 2004)
Barney Frank: The Story of America's Only Left-handed, Gay, Jewish Congressman, Stuart E. Weisberg, University of Massachusetts Press, 2009
Reforming Boston Schools, 1930-2006: Overcoming Corruption and Racial Segregation, Joseph M. Cronin, Palgrave Macmillan, Jun 15, 2011
The Elusive Ideal: Equal Educational Opportunity and the Federal Role in Boston's Public Schools, 1950-1985, Adam R. Nelson, University of Chicago Press, 2005

And in many scholarly articles, including:

Clark, Karen. “Boston Desegregation: What Went Wrong?” The Clearing House, vol. 51, no. 4, 1977, pp. 157–159. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/30184960.
Beck, William W., et al. “Identifying School Desegregation Leadership Styles.” The Journal of Negro Education, vol. 49, no. 2, 1980, pp. 115–133. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2294961.
Brown-Nagin, Tomiko. “Race as Identity Caricature: A Local Legal History Lesson in the Salience of Intraracial Conflict.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol. 151, no. 6, 2003, pp. 1913–1976. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3313022.
Wilkinson, J. Harvie. “The Dimensions of American Constitutional Equality.” Law and Contemporary Problems, vol. 55, no. 1, 1992, pp. 235–251. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1191765.

Part of the difficulty editors opinion delete may have been experiencing stems fomr the fact that there are a lot of other Kathleens Sullivan in the world.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm just piling it on here, but there is INDEPTH in several biographies of Barney Frank, well, of course there is, not merely because he was a very well known gay politician on the national scene, but because when they were dating they were BOTH well-known Massachusetts politicians, so OF COURSE there was INDEPTH. Not because she was "the girlfriend" but because the was a public figure in her own right, Ditto with Alioto marriage. (here's some hot political gossip c. 1978 via the New York Times: In addition, Kathleen Sullivan, a member of the Boston School Committee who recently was married to Joseph Alioto, the former Mayor of San Francisco, is ‘expected to announce her candidacy on Tuesday. I grant you that she's been more or less forgotten, cf. our endemic PRESENTISM problem. But in this discussion, we seem to have a SEXISM problem as well.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Do we keep a list of suggestions for teachers who want to use Wikipedia as a teaching tool? I ask because it looks to me like pretty much all of the articles on the Boston desegregation busing crisis need major improvement, including this article, Boston desegregation busing crisis, Wendell Arthur Garrity Jr., and John J. Kerrigan.17:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey I made some extremely minimal improvements to the page (which had lacked any indicaiton of her involvement with the school desegregation crisis.) Section on her role in the Boston desegregation busing crisis remains in need of major improvement. An enormous reservoir of sources exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification – I said "desegregation of public transportation before" when, in fact, it was that of public school*** transportation. This, in my opinion, makes what Sullivan did even less notable. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 19:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify again, busing is not "desegregation of public school transportation" either. Bakazaka (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, ~~NO, no!!!~~ She was NOT involved in "public school*** transportation." The issue in Boston at the time when she was a very important elected official was desegregation of the public schools. the proposed solution was to bus working class and poor white kids to schools in black neighborhoods, and working class and poor black kids to schools in white neighborhoods (the middle classes had left Boston or were paying for parochial schools. the judge who ordered integration lived in a posh suburb.) Boston's small, white working class white population was livid. There were riots, violent opposition. It was called a "busing" crisis, but it was about desegregation of the public schools. Sullivan voted to desegregate. Buses were used as a tool of desegregation. It was NOT about school transportation. Please read the article, and the links it contains.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god "No, NO, no!!!" what the heck is that? See WP:DBO. I did read it, and the crisis was named "busing" because of the issue of transportation. It was more, but the issue was named that by the judge. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from Busing: "practice of assigning and transporting students to schools so as to redress prior racial segregation of schools..." Is that not transportation? I'd be inclined to think that it is. And yes, Busing isn't desegregation. I said that this was desegregation of the busing in Boston. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for the discussion, there seems to be some basic confusion here. Given that it calls the underlying assumptions of the nomination and the assessment of sources into question, probably best to let other editors weigh in. Bakazaka (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To me, this all seems like WP:BLP1E. Sullivan did nothing but assist in these efforts. Why not Merge with the Boston busing crisis article? Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've looked through the sources and they are all routine or not about her. The desegregation of the public schools issue is irrelevant - the fact it was a (I assume) notable issue decided by the school board she was on doesn't make her notable, and the people she dated don't make her notable. SportingFlyer talk 00:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To give just one example of the SIGCOV of Sullivan in scholarly sources, there are six separate sections in Boston Against Busing: Race, Class, and Ethnicity in the 1960s and 1970s, (University of North Carolina Press,) that offer INDEPTH coverage of her role.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A few of the newspaper stories that are about Sullivan, headline and text. As requested by User:SportingFlyer:
City schools are Kathleen Sullivan's lessons, Cohen, Muriel. Boston Globe (1960-1987); Boston, Mass. [Boston, Mass]19 Feb 1974: 5. (about her work to improve classroom education in Boston schools)
The diligent Miss Sullivan,Surkin, Carol. Boston Globe (1960-1987); Boston, Mass. [Boston, Mass]16 Sep 1975: 25. (profile of Sullivan as a notably hard-working member of the School Committee)
School Committee: Sullivan top votegetter Cowen, Peter. Boston Globe (1960-1987); Boston, Mass. [Boston, Mass]28 Sep 1977: 1.
An elated Kathleen Sullivan has 39,593 reasons to smile Marquerite Del Giudice. Boston Globe (1960-1987); Boston, Mass. [Boston, Mass]09 Nov 1977: 15.
Kathleen Sullivan puts pressure on businessBoston Globe (1960-1987); Boston, Mass. [Boston, Mass]25 May 1975: A5.
Kathleen Sullivan Engaged to Alioto The Hartford Courant (1923-1992); Hartford, Conn. [Hartford, Conn]16 Apr 1977: 38a.
Miss Sullivan gets shouted at againSales, Bob. Boston Globe (1960-1987); Boston, Mass. [Boston, Mass]20 Mar 1974: 3.
The Sullivan 'girl' now has clout and a batting average to prove it, Cohen, Muriel. Boston Globe (1960-1987); Boston, Mass. [Boston, Mass]27 Jan 1977: 3.
Sullivan denies deal with Palladino,Cohen, Muriel. Boston Globe (1960-1987); Boston, Mass. [Boston, Mass]19 Feb 1977: 4.
Sullivan, Alioto wed by controversial priest, Cohen, Muriel. Boston Globe (1960-1987); Boston, Mass. [Boston, Mass]28 Feb 1978: 1.
The plight of Alioto's second troth,Newsday (1940-1989), Nassau ed.; Long Island, N.Y. [Long Island, N.Y]28 Feb 1978: 9. "Former San Francisco Mayor James Alioto has married has married Boston School Committee Chairwoaman Kathleen Sullivan..."
Sullivan tells Garrity he nurtures 'a lie', Worsham, James. Boston Globe (1960-1987); Boston, Mass. [Boston, Mass]17 Mar 1976: 1. And more. While I do understand SportingFlyer's complaint that editors like me make argument based on material that is behind expensive paywalls, the fact remains that paywalled archives of blue chip sources such as the Boston Globe are the front line of defense against our endemic PRESENTISM problem. Of course, in Sullivan Alioto's case, there are books.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: I'm not actually all that concerned about the paywall - there are ways for me to verify some of these articles. For instance, I've read "The diligent Miss Sullivan," which does discuss her and her voting record as a member of the school board, which raises the question of how much coverage someone who fails WP:NPOL needs to pass WP:GNG for articles that discuss the politician in their role. My bigger concerns were that the articles that I had easy access to did not show WP:SIGCOV but were presented as if they did. I'm less concerned about this article now. SportingFlyer talk 00:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete - A local board member and an unelected candidate for political office do not guarantee notability. Finishing third in a Senate race does not make one notable, thus the subject does not meet notability guidelines. Fails WP:NPOL as the subject has never been elected into public office. The subject appears locally known in large part because of high-profile people she dated and married. Notability is not inherited. Also, because there is no wide coverage specifically about the subject, subject fails WP:GNG. Limited coverage, as shown above, which includes a few society-page mentions, is trivial at best. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC) On a deeper dive via Google, I found a UMass Boston report included within a published study titled A Collaborative History of Segregation in Boston. It includes a lengthy section on Kathleen Sullivan and her role against segregation. Her six years on the school committee fighting segregation helped change history, according to the study. Thus, coupled with the other media coverage cited in the article, the subject passes WP:GNG. I added the source and info to the article. I also reorganized the article. The article meets notability guidelines and should remain on Wiki. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please encounter the argument for KEEP, which is not that she is notable because of who she dated meets POL noe based on who she dated. The argument is that she played a key role in a major political battle over desegregating Boston's public schools, during which she garnered WP:SIGCOV in media nationwide and which had had ONGOING attention in books and scholarly books and articles in the decades since.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY The SEXISM and lazy dismissal of sources supporting Sullivan's notability in favor of arguing that The subject appears locally known in large part because of high-profile people she dated and married. which includes a few society-page mentions is almost as thick as the headlines about her that ran in the sexist seventies about The Sullivan 'girl, and The diligent Miss Sullivan. I have begun an expansion of the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sexism? Excuse me?!? Women and men equally make the society pages. I beg your pardon, @E.M.Gregory:? -AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sexism argument is bizarre, this has nothing to do with her gender. SportingFlyer talk 00:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom and more than one commenting editor dismissed this as being about who she dated. But what truly puzzles me is why you are not revisiting your "delete". This woman led the school committee and played a pivotal role in one of America's noisiest public school desegregation battles, she was in the news nationwide in the 70's and she gets INDEPTH in multiple books and academic papers. Even though after he marriage and losing her campaign for Senate she pretty much retired form public life.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @SportingFlyer: No, @E.M.Gregory:, this editor did not dismiss "this as being about who she dated." Other editors mentioned her dating history as well. To be clear, it was about the news coverage she received as a result of whom she dated. Big difference. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is specifically because SportingFlyer was not among those making this sort of assertion that I explained to him that other editors had done so. Again, AuthorAuthor, I ask you not to misread me. Sporting and I usually agree on perceiving or not perceiving SIGCOV, just as you an I usually do. E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at it and I disagree with your analysis, but I'm more of a weak delete than a delete now, as I see this as a discussion of when someone notable only for being on a school board passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 03:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with E.M.Gregory here and there is plenty of coverage of her work before and after her senate run in RS. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:28, 17 September 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. czar 18:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DECENT Network[edit]

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

Barely sourced, no reliable sources, no evidence of notability. A WP:BEFORE is difficult, but searching on "Decent Network" shows only bitcoin blogs, mostly running press releases. This appears never to have been a reasonably sourced article; the sourcing issues were raised on the talk page several months ago, and there's no sign waiting longer will help. I'd be delighted to be proven wrong ... David Gerard (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 18:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Λυδ α cιτγ 09:44, 11 September 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. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Street, Edinburgh[edit]

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

This street/article isn't particularly notable and reads like a history guide Angryskies (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The street is historic, dating back about 5 centuries, and so we would expect some history. This is not a reason to delete; quite the contrary. The topic is notable, being covered in sources such as Leith Through Time; The Sculptured Stones of Leith; The History of Leith. Andrew D. (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And what's wrong with a history guide on an encyclopaedia? Historic streets are frequently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew Davidson and Necrothesp. Satisfies GNG. "Reads like a history guide" is simply not a valid argument for deletion. An encyclopedia should include history, and I don't think that the expression "history guide" actually means anything in English. It looks like gibberish. James500 (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments above. However it would be good if someone could add information about Bernard Street that comes from the sources Andrew Davidson mentions to further show its notability. Dunarc (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This doesn't actually appear to meet WP:GNG having reviewed the sources in the article and a couple sources presented above - just passing mentions of the street don't count as significant coverage. The Sculptured Stones of Leith in particular doesn't give significant coverage, just mentions. I understand this will likely be kept - there's definitely a problem with the nomination, and I would vote keep just on a failure to mention a proper reason for deletion in the nomination, but just because a street is old doesn't mean it's notable - it requires sources discussing it apart from who it's named after. SportingFlyer talk 00:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The street is absolutely full of listed buildings: [7]. As such it satisfies NGEO. James500 (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:GEOROAD, the appropriate geographic notability marker, points to the WP:GNG, not to anything having to do with listed buildings. SportingFlyer talk 06:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I disagree. The buildings are clearly part of the street. GEOROAD actually says that notability varies, and is obviously intended to refer to roads that have no buildings. In any event, all those list entries provide an enormous amount of coverage that satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin. James500 (talk) 06:21, 15 September 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. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Shanley[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E/WP:BLPCRIME issue. We already have an article on the crimes, this "biography" is just a discussion of the role and conviction of one defendant, with no other details about him.. Guy (Help!) 17:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 23:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 23:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of independent WP:RS. Also, this is not just allegations (WP:BLPCRIME); According to the article, the priest was convicted and is seeking a new trial. I'm not sure what the proposed merge location, but I see no reason to merge giving the amount of independentWP:RS referring to this specific individual. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are there other than about the crime? I can see all kinds of reasons for covering this in the article in Catholic Church sexual abuse cases, or even a spin out of the Boston cases specifically, but this is purported to be a biography. Guy (Help!) 07:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with renaming it to be about the legal case, in a name similar to Jacob Zuma rape trial, Bill_Cosby_sexual_assault_cases, and others found here. I agree that the WP:RS is more about the case than about the person. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand the sections on his earlier life. Paul Shanley first gained fame in the 1970s, long before he was arrested. He was in the news a lot in the 70s and 80s for opposing the Catholic Church's teachings on sexuality, and for his open support of pedophilia. The article alludes to this briefly. The only objection to this article is basically its heavy focus on his later trial and conviction, but there's an easy way to fix that: just go into more detail about his earlier activities. I can add some material. GBRV (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GBRV: Thanks for the comment. I might strike my comment about renaming if you can show me some good sources that show that his earlier life is notable too. I did notice it in the first article I looked at some mention of his earlier life, but the titles of nearly all the others seemed to be about the trial. That made me shift to the idea of making the article on the legal case rather than the person. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Tornheim - Even some (or many) of the articles sparked by the trial also mention his earlier life; for example, this Boston Globe article goes into extensive detail: [8] GBRV (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per improvements made since nom. Clearly notable per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If a perp gets this sort of coverage in 2017 - [9][10][11] (and several other national outlets) - when he gets released from prison (never mind coverage media in the case itself, and in books[12], etc.) - then he's clearly independently notable from Catholic Archdiocese of Boston sex abuse scandal.Icewhiz (talk) 10:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep far too much WP:SIGCOV to make deletion plausible.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:50, 17 September 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. Vanamonde (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeannette Leboeuf[edit]

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

Minimally referenced biography of a person whose strongest claim of notability is having been the first woman to serve on the municipal council of her own small town. As always, municipal councillors are not automatically presumed notable just because they existed, and being the first woman in her own town (but not the first woman in either her province or her country) is not an automatic notability boost over all of her other colleagues either -- but this is referenced to just two pieces of local coverage in her own hometown newspaper (a depth and range of coverage which every single municipal councillor in the history of municipal politics could always show) and a user-generated family genealogy (which is not support for notability at all). So the sourcing here is not strong enough to make her special, and nothing claimed in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sources from having to make her special. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see nothing in the article or the references which clearly indicate notability. But remember, if she was significant at the Provincial level, the sources would likely be in French. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True, but proper nouns come up in news searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable local politician. SportingFlyer talk 06:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:POL E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:26, 15 September 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yadin Kaufmann[edit]

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

Promotional article by a WP:SPA. I moved it to draft, it was moved back without any significant changes. Basically an extended advert, with most sources being blatant PR or churnalism. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the editor who accepted this AfC, I saw no problem with the prose in the article. I saw nothing that screamed self-promotion in ways that I have seen in other articles of the same ilk. The sources provided, including Foreign Policy magazine, the New York Times and Forbes (as well as several Israeli news outlets) would be considered WP:RS for wiki standards. I do recognize the number of Press releases as a slight concern, and I would be additionally concerned if a Single-purpose account was trying to promote Mr. Kaufmann. That being said, I judged it as being neutrally written in its current form. Bkissin (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Subject seems to be notable, with many citations to coverage in reliable sources. However, this article has significant WP:NPOV problems, particularly the extended quote from the subject regarding his opinions on the Palestinian situation and his proposed solutions. Regarding Bkissin's comment above, it appears that this article may very well be written by a single-purpose account, Jejo2233. I would not be opposed to a delete under WP:TNT. Rosguill^talk 18:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable in a cursory BEFORE and in sources present in article. NPOV is not an issue, PROMO of the subject is perhaps a tad too much - but this may reflect RSes used which tend to be positive for "feel good" stories. Deletion is not cleanup, and this is way off from TNT.Icewhiz (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have reviewed the comments of JzG, Rosguill, Bkissin and Icewhiz, and thank them all for their comments. As the initial author of this article, I am disappointed that it was filed for removal. I believe that Wikipedia should certainly offer material covering an internationally renowned such as Yadin Kaufmann and that the article I wrote was factual, thoroughly sourced, and contained only directly relevant content. That said, should Wikipedia editors feel that certain passages are not directly relevant (or not adequately sourced), I suggest that those passages be removed - rather than the entire page. Removing the entire page would do a disservice to Wikipedia readers interested in Mr. Kaufmann or his fields of activity. Jejo2233 (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He may actually be notable, though the article will need some revision, DGG ( talk ) 08:22, 18 September 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. One can discuss whether the album articles should be merged (probably not, given some reasoning here) but it's certainly not a delete. Tone 21:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hammerhead (band)[edit]

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

Band does not meet notability guidelines in WP:NMUSIC; thus, their albums, also listed here, do not. All sources cited in the article are from non-WP:RS zines. I checked and did not see any WP:CHART activity from the band, and their material was not released on a major label. Teemu08 (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because if the band is not notable, neither are the albums:[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the sources in the article are from unreliable sources, that's an article quality issue, not a reason to delete. If they didn't chart, that means they don't satisfy one of the criteria of WP:NMUSIC. They released three albums on Amphetamine Reptile which is "one of the more important indie labels", so gives them a pass of criterion 4 of the guideline. In addition, they received sufficient coverage, e.g. Allmusic: [13], [14], [15], [16], Trouser Press, Noisey/Vice, City Pages, Andre Earles' book Gimme Indie Rock, The Spokesman-Review, and probably plenty more in the music press from the 90s when they were originally active. --Michig (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Hammerhead (band) article (meets WP:GNG) and then merge the separate album articles into it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NMUSIC as releases on a major label and has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as shown above so also passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 19:42, 17 September 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. Tone 21:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kawal Sharma[edit]

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

Not a notable creative entertainer. Could not find related content online. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 15:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 15:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 15:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Although I did find some sources using Eazyhomepage, none strong enough to warrant a Wiki article. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:50, 10 September 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. Tone 21:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Ji[edit]

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

GNG fail. Search finds no SIGCOV. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ARTIST.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:57, 15 September 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. Tone 21:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Ridlen[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails GNG. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is probably TOOSOON.--Theredproject (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that it may be too soon. The only source I found is http://www.lajollalight.com/sdljl-ucsd-art-grads-open-studios-2015-2015mar23-story.html. There isn't sufficient significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to sustain an article. --Vexations (talk) 02:08, 13 September 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. Tone 21:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Green[edit]

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

NN artist fails GNG. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NARTIST. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Capitals00 (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not yet established Jack1956 (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TOOSOON. Also, WP:NARTIST is particularly difficult for illustrators, as their "exhibitions" are primarily in books. It seems particularly hard to argue for their inclusion here at AFD. --Theredproject (talk) 01:16, 13 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Yar Khan Mandokhail[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN due to no notable post held, never elected and lack of WP:SIGCOV. Being the Deputy General Secretary of a minor Political party in Pakistan is the only claim to notability which fails well short of the mark. DBig Xrayᗙ 12:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 12:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 12:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and has no significant coverage in reliable sources. Kpg jhp jm 15:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am unable to find evidence that this individual meets GNG. Vanamonde (talk) 03:58, 18 September 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. This was a close thing, but there is weak consensus here that the coverage of this season is nothing that isn't routine, and that neither NSEASONS nor GNG is met. Vanamonde (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Grand Rapids FC season[edit]

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

The article fails WP:NSEASONS for two reasons. First, the team plays in NPSL, a Division IV league in the United States, far from a top professional league. Second, WP:NSEASONS says that "[t]eam season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose" [emphasis in original], and this article contains none of that. The lack of prose in the article causes it to run afoul of WP:NOTSTATS, which is another reason to delete it. While the local media coverage of the team is impressive, it is questionable whether this local coverage causes the article to rise to the level needed to satisfy the presumption of notability under WP:GNG. That guideline indicates that even where an article has the presumption of notability, the results of a common-sense discussion should prevail. Common sense tells me that the 2018 season of Grand Rapids FC was not so much more notable than the seasons of all other American Division IV clubs that it is the only one that is notable enough to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. The club didn't win its league's championship and was not a participant in either the 2018 U.S. Open Cup or the 2018 Hank Steinbrecher Cup. The article's first deletion nomination resulted in a procedural keep. Taxman1913 (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Taxman1913 (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Sorry about that, Cyberbot I. This is the first time I've nominated an article for deletion, and I guess I didn't get here quickly enough to do Step 3. Thanks for having my back. Taxman1913 (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Taxman1913 makes some good points, there is some argument to be made about the "prose to stats" ratio. I'm not following the reasoning regarding the localness of coverage and the presumption of notability. At any rate, it does appear that the article is attempting to follow the spirit of writing encyclopedic content, even if there are points of contention regarding the amount of statistics. - Scarpy (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I was not willing to go so far as to say that the localness of the coverage automatically makes it something other than significant. I only said that it is questionable. Local media might cover events such as an annual play put on by a junior high school or the closing of a family-owned hardware store that most locals remember patronizing before the Home Depot opened. I'm not equating the 2018 Grand Rapids FC season with either of those things, but I am saying that when media coverage is exclusively local, it merits a discussion as to whether such coverage rises to the level of significant. Taxman1913 (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surprisingly most of this is already covered by 2018 NPSL season and because of this I am going to say delete due to WP:NSEASONS and WP:CONTENTFORK. Govvy (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage is routine and where there is coverage it's not WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Also agreed that this is an unnecessary content fork. There is also extensive consensus that seasons at this level are not considered notable. Jay eyem (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The only important thing: this particular team's season passes WP:GNG (and it may be the only one) through coverage in numerous reliable secondary sources. The prose-to-stats ratio argument is a solid one, but it's a fixable problem and doesn't go against notability. Local coverage is still coverage. SportingFlyer talk 06:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As I stated above, an article that meets WP:GNG only gains the presumtion of notability, not unquestionable notability. Taxman1913 (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Except the coverage is routine for every source presently listed, and having routine coverage is not sufficient basis for an article. This is where WP:FOOTYN really needs to come up with standards for what season articles are presumed notable. The info and sourcing would be much better served in the Grand Rapids FC article. Jay eyem (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Except these articles synthesize the coverage that has been received over the entire season. There's nothing wrong with routine sources in this context. SportingFlyer talk 01:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is literally a WP:SYNTH argument. If there is a source discussing the notability of the season in its entirety that might be different, but as is its just a bunch of routine sources. You can't just string together a bunch of routine sources and claim notability. Jay eyem (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Except the season has been continuously covered by significant sources. Requiring a season recap article to be notable on the basis of season recap sources would be ridiculous. It's not a WP:SYNTH issue as that has little to do with notability, and it's not WP:OR either. Clearly notable season, even if most seasons in this league would not be. SportingFlyer talk 03:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I personally think that even just a season recap would be woefully insufficient for seasons at this level, but that's not what WP:SIGCOV says. It absolutely is a WP:SYNTH issue because you are suggesting that you can just string together multiple instances of routine coverage to create an assumed notability without having the significant coverage that WP:GNG requires. The source do absolutely nothing to demonstrate notability for the season as a whole in question, and given the extensive consensus (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12) on seasons at this level, deletion is the pretty clear choice here. Jay eyem (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The season was covered significantly in reliable secondary sources. As I've noted, there's no SYNTH issue, and the other precedents don't matter because this article passes WP:GNG. I agree a season at this level isn't generally notable. SportingFlyer talk 01:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does anything really standout that makes this season special? Nope nothing in my opinion, WP:NSEASONS still applies regardless of GNG, and the article fails not only NSeasons, but I consider it a content fork per above, also the main football club article is tiny. There more than enough room to add prose about the season and not record the stats because thats covered by the season page noted from above. This article isn't needed what so ever at this level and is unnecessary. Govvy (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG, and that's enough. Yes, WP:NOTSTATS is a thing, but AFD is not cleanup. Fix it, don't delete it. Smartyllama (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree with WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. However, this article doesn't need cleaning up. There really is no article here. There is a lede followed by a collection of statistics. There is no prose at all. Essentially, if the article is to be kept, it needs to be written, not cleaned up. Right now, it is very far away from the guideline at WP:NSEASONS that says "[t]eam season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose" [emphasis in original]. This article does not even consist partially of well-sourced prose. Taxman1913 (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which really isn't a reason for deletion - the topic is notable per WP:GNG and prose can be added to the article. SportingFlyer talk 21:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is also inaccurate. Most of the prose in the lead didn't belong there, it was a season summary. Arguing that "there is no prose", while ignoring the prose that is just sitting in the lead is beyond dumb.^{(I wasn't aware that this prose had been added after this comment)} I've split it into another section. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 08:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict6 9 02:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I've seen much worse sourced team articles, and a lot of them need deletion, but there seems to be plenty of coverage of games of this particular season. Is it really common practice to disregard game coverage for notability and delete season articles that are well sourced? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, the arguments against is that the league isn't significant enough, the season wasn't important enough because they didn't win anything and/or only received local coverage (though throughout Michigan, which confuses the argument a bit), or the lack of prose (a fixable issue), but this season received enough media coverage to pass WP:GNG and I don't really see any better WP:NOT argument against. SportingFlyer talk 06:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And yet your argument that it meets WP:GNG is essentially a WP:SYNTH argument and there is extensive precedent for this exact situation that says these seasons are not notable. Kind of up to the admins if they want to break from that precedent. Also as a side note, most of the prose presently in the lead was not there when the comments addressing it took place, just check the edit history. Jay eyem (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And yet WP:SYNTH is an WP:NOR argument and there's nothing here which is original research - it's all supported by sources which pass WP:GNG. We're going to go back and forth on this one. SportingFlyer talk 19:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see how even asking for a single article that summarizes the entire season is too much to ask for. If I can find literally any team that gets regular local coverage can it go on Wikipedia? High school american football? Of course not. So where does the line get drawn exactly? This is why WP:SIGCOV exists. It's also why the precedent regarding semi-professional seasons exists. Because they need to achieve that significant coverage, which this definitely does not. And it's the exact same reason why so many have been deleted in the past. Without even an article summarizing the season in its entirety I don't see how this is anything but synthesis. Jay eyem (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to disagree - the club has received WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources. The "season recap" article is just adding an additional qualifier onto WP:GNG which shouldn't need to exist. SportingFlyer talk 21:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "The coverage isn't about the season, it's about parts of the season" is completely ridiculous. Coverage about parts of the season is coverage about the season, just as coverage about things people do is coverage of those people, even if it doesn't summarize everything that person ever did in their entire life. That's absurd to say otherwise. Smartyllama (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So what, if I have multiple instances of routine coverage that is sufficient to qualify for any article? Absolutely not. That’s precisely what WP:ROUTINE addresses. Jay eyem (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NSEASONS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per SportingFlyer & Smartyllama. Article possibly passes WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fails WP:NSEASONS, WP:NOTSTATS, and WP:GNG. The event has only routine local coverage and the article was cobbled together, WP:SYNTH, not using any sources demonstrating the notability of the season as a whole. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Although I am the nominator, I am doing my best to keep an open mind. I read the prose content that has been added since the article was nominated for deletion. I cleaned up the grammar and spelling and tried to improve the content's readability without altering what the editor was saying. I do not think the article should be deleted based on the quality of the writing. So, I thought upgrading it would make it easier to evaluate the content fairly. In the four paragraphs of prose, I noted seven statements that lack citations to independent reliable sources. Five of these have no citations at all, and the other two have citations to sources that simply do not address the statement to which the reference is attached. If the 2018 Grand Rapids FC season truly received significant coverage, it should be easy to find an independent reliable source that covered the team's NPSL season opener, but that match is mentioned in the prose with no reference supporting it. There is also no source given for the club's first match against Ann Arbor, the defending conference champion, who repeated in 2018. Surely, this was one of the biggest matches of the GRFC season. I added the reference to support the team's loss in the Milk Cup semifinals, since it was already in the article. However, that reference is merely a trivial mention. The source is addressing the Milk Cup final and mentions how Lansing United, one of the participants, got there. An eight-team tournament with a $5,000 prize like the Milk Cup is clearly important to a semi-professional team. A team that is receiving significant coverage would surely have a media outlet run a story about its semifinal match in such a tournament. A statement is made in the prose about the Great Lakes Conference playoff race and the five teams competing for two berths as of the midway point of the NPSL season. With these teams all in the same geographic region, if the team was receiving significant coverage, or even if the Great Lakes Conference was receiving significant coverage, a media outlet would have produced an article on this playoff race. Instead, the statement about the playoff race is made, and no supporting source is offered. There is also no source provided for the team's second match with the aforementioned Ann Arbor. Particularly since this was a win for Grand Rapids, and arguably the team's most important win of the season, one would expect that an independent reliable source for this result is available, but none is offered. Some of the sources cited may be independent and reliable, but it is questionable whether they are truly providing significant coverage. For example, the article on the WoodTV website "covering" the second leg of the Milk Cup quarterfinals reads: "Grand Rapids FC needed a comeback effort to steal a game away from the Muskegon Risers on Friday night. After falling down early, Grand Rapids came back to win 4-3. **Watch highlights from the game in the above video.**" That is the entire article. WoodTV did find a way to make three paragraphs out of that, but it is barely more coverage than daily lottery numbers receive. If this article is kept, the overall tone of the season recap section must be addressed, since parts of it read more like a post in a fan forum than an encyclopedia article. WP:NSEASONS says that "[t]eam season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose" [emphasis in original], and this article falls far short of that. The noble effort to add prose in the two weeks since this article was nominated for deletion has only convinced me that it is not possible to have well-sourced prose in this article, because the 2018 Grand Rapids FC season did not receive significant coverage. Therefore, the article fails WP:GNG. Since well-sourced prose cannot be written for this article, it can never consist mainly of well-sourced prose. That being the case, the article runs afoul of WP:NOTSTATS. Taxman1913 (talk) 10:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs discussion after Taxman1913 significantly improved the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. I would suggest that coverage of the club's games during the season is relevant to the club or the league's season meeting WP:GNG, but not the club's individual season. Also, this topic is already covered at 2018 NPSL season. Number 5 7 16:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a well sourced well written article detailing a football team's season which is a more than worthy subject for an encyclopedia. BRFC4104 (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I do not agree that every well sourced, well written article about an association football team merits inclusion on Wikipedia. For example, my cousin plays on a U-9 girls team. If her enthusiastic mother were to write a well sourced article that follows the MoS guidelines of WikiProject Football and has an absolutely beautiful flow to it, I would still expect to conclude that it meets neither WP:NSEASONS nor WP:GNG. Based on that, such an article does not belong here. Despite the fact that I contributed to this article—in an effort to get the subject evaluated more fairly—I don't think it is well sourced or well written. There are gaps in the sourcing of things written by the primary editor. There are sources that do not support what the article says. There are synthesis/original research issues, and there are neutrality issues. As I said above, it appears there is not enough independent coverage from reliable sources to conclude that there has been significant coverage of the subject. Taxman1913 (talk) 10:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with a nod that I was the user that put the page up for AFD the first time. Still fails WP:NSEASONS, as per N57's arguments. Also, the majority of the sources on this page are WP:ROUTINE coverage, either match reports or transfer news. Just a note as well regarding the use of references: common usage for match reports is to externally link it under the "|report=" part of the box, not as a reference. I believe the number of references would drop sharply if this were put into effect. 21.colinthompson (talk) 15:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I am swayed by the comments by Taxman1913, and by other delete !voters. Does not meet GNG or WP:NSEASONS. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I am delighted to know that CleverPhrase has read the entirety of my comments, not just my comment at 15:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC) saying that there was no prose at all, which CleverPhrase characterized as "beyond dumb." This attack not only departs from Wikiquette, but it was also completely unwarranted. CleverPhrase may want to take a look at how the article looked at the time I made my comment. Taxman1913 (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. I wasn't aware of that, but I suppose I should have checked. I've struck my comment above. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: I appreciate that, and I'm willing to forgive and forget. Taxman1913 (talk) 14:12, 12 September 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. Tone 21:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Krithika Nelson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, and there's no provision for dub-over artists at WP:NACTOR, since "voice actor" in normal usage means an actor who is generating a personality for a character, for example in an animated film.

I was super close to nominating this for speedy deletion under A7 "No indication of importance". When considering A7s, there is the "credible claim of significance" calculation that we have to perform to determine both credibility and significance. Do I believe that Krithika Nelson dubs over other actors' voices? Yes. Assuming this is true, is this likely to cause her to be considered notable. Absolutely not. Nobody cares about people who dub over existing characters. Quick, tell me who did the German dub of Captain America in Civil War! You probably can't, because nobody cares.

I have to question why someone would be drawn to a dubbing actor with five roles, such that they would write an article about them. What was the intellectual journey there? Do I smell a hint of paid editing? Am I just being cynical? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is true that the subject isn't significant at all. It is as though she is a shadow in these films, which I don't consider to be very notable. Generally, I would've supported a speedy deletion. Yanjipy (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing just doesn't support the article meeting WP:GNG and unlikely it will. Dubbing a role does not equal playing that role. Even if a person has a fair number of dubbing roles, there's going to be a lot of very passing mentions, but that won't meet GNG. Ravensfire (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON, not notable at this stage and fails WP:GNG.--Let There Be Sunshine 08:02, 16 September 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Choi[edit]

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

An actress that has only one noble role, see Insatiable (TV series), does not meet the notability guidelines of WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. In addition, see WP:ONEEVENT. She has no significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. This also falls in the WP:TOOSOON category. — Lbtocth^talk 14:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 18:57, 16 September 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. Tone 21:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shrinivas G. Kulkarni[edit]

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

Entirely non-notable film actor.Trivial roles in a few films.Fails both general notability guidelines as well as subject-notability-guidelines comprehensively.Nothing resembling non-gossipy 'and' significant coverage can be located. ∯WBG^converse 13:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - interesting in 2016 [17] the speedy deletion nomination and repeated suggestions after that to improve the article, suggest a very limited understanding of notability requirements. JarrahTree 14:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per JarrahTree, and per this. I had totally forgotten about that article. It was like 14 months ago. Lacks significant coverage, fails WP:NACTOR, and WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:58, 10 September 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Shrawan[edit]

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

I don't see how she manages to pass our notability guideline or our subject specific guidelines.Nothing resembling non-trivial or non-gossip coverage in RS can be located.Mere mentions in cast-lists of a few films, which hardly made any buzz. ∯WBG^converse 13:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One citation is a wedding announcement with a selection of photos. The others are press releases promoting What About Savarkar?, a film on which we have no article (IMDb link). A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing better. Fails WP:NACTOR. Narky Blert (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Marathi is one of several languages of the Subcontinent where the sourcing is terrible – and that is the problem. We need WP:RS sources. I will accept sources in any language or script, even if they're difficult to translate (Meadow Mari or Odia, anyone?), but without RS sources you cannot get through WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 04:19, 13 September 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. Tone 21:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shivani Rangole[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't see how she manages to pass our notability guideline or our subject specific guidelines.Nothing resembling non-trivial or non-gossip coverage in RS can be located. ∯WBG^converse 13:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete: fails WP:NACTOR, and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete as i messaged on talk page i created this article long back, currently i am studding the rules and policies of Wikipedia, so i do not oppose to delete the article. Shrinivaskulkarni1388 09:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:03, 15 September 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pan-Hornism[edit]

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

WP:NEOLOGISM that has only 5 hits in a google search, might even meet CSD A11 Dom from Paris (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Neo applies to articles. This is a disambiguation page, not an aticle. Thylacoop5 (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Disambiguation pages disambiguate between topics that are known by the ambiguous term. Are the topics of any of the articles listed on the page known as "Pan-Hornism"? – Uanfala (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just because you stick it in a Disambiguation pages category doesn't make it a DAB page. --Dom from Paris (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also you should read MOS:DABPIPE which explains that including a redirect in a DAB page should not be done. The Pan-Somalism redirect links to Greater Somalia which mentions Pan-Somalism as a piped link to Somali nationalism which is also in the list. None of the articles in this "DAB" page mention pan-hornism including Eritrean nationalism which you have just created yourself. The sources that mention pan-hornism all date back to last couple of weeks and are all on social media with comments like "Inshallah, "Pan-Hornism" will soon be a thing." or "Wow! not only we are witnessing the blossoming of “Pan Hornism”, but also a political MOXIE against those who mindlessly poke their nose in"...and that's about it. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as basically non-existent, non-notable neologism devoid of reliable sources, though at least people will be able to point to this AfD page if anyone ever wants to look the term up in future. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since none of the linked pages include the words Pan-Hornism or hornism, this does not appear to be a valid disambiguation page. I don't know whether any of those varieties nationalism are referred to as Pan-Hornism, but at the moment I have no evidence to suggest that they are. Cnilep (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not valid as a disambiguation page, and the term itself does seem to be a WP:NEOLOGISM. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:42, 11 September 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. Tone 21:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Dialogues[edit]

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

Apart from one source (TV100) which reads more like a press release than an actual news report, there seems to be a lack of coverage in reliable, secondary sources about this website. The "achievements" seem rather dubious (being listed in a "top 15" which consist of 13 sites but which has a prominent "Submit Blog. Do you want more traffic, leads, and sales?" link) or at last not noteworthy. Lacks notability. Fram (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:WEBCRIT. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Fails WP:NORG and/or WP:WEBCRIT by a mile or so.Not an iota of significant coverage in reliable sources.Nothing in Hindi, either.∯WBG^converse 13:58, 12 September 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. Tone 21:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina Lavoie[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player who fails to meet WP:GNG. In doing a search I could find no evidence they meet GNG. They also do not meet WP:NHOCKEY which requires women's hockey players to have played in the World Championships or Olympics. DJSasso (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fairly or not, the National Women's Hockey League is not listed by WP:NHOCKEY as a league that hands every player an automatic inclusion freebie the moment they skate onto the ice, which is the only notability claim being attempted here — there's no claim whatsoever of the "preeminent honours" distinctions that it takes to make a player notable if they peaked below the NHOCKEY #1 level. But the referencing is entirely to primary sources that do not count as support for notability, so there's no argument to be made that she clears WP:GNG in lieu of not passing NHOCKEY either. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage to show that WP:GNG is met and there's no evidence that she meets any criteria at WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indifferent Under current standards I can understand it is a 'delete', however I wonder if we should have a further discussion on the notability of women's professional leagues, moving forward.–uncleben85 (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Uncleben85: We have several times, including a very in-depth review less than a year ago. Currently, the independent media still treats women's leagues similar or even less than the ECHL. A lot of people wanted to believe the CWHL and NWHL to be justified for inclusion further into NHOCKEY (including myself), but there was not enough actual evidence of verifiable and reliable independent sources. The NWHL gets 99% of its routine coverage from SB Nation bloggers (often, not the actual paid journalists or editors). Unfortunately, and honestly, I have had hard time just trying to find reliable routine info on the leagues and teams, much less about players. So yeah, we have discussed the topic of "automatic" presumed notability for women's hockey players quite a bit. Yosemiter (talk) 04:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Uncleben85 that it's more alarming that we have such strict criteria for women athletes compared to men than this particular instance. Simonm223 (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Simonm223: None of us are excluding women from NHOCKEY. It is not "stricter", it is just as strict for men's players in that the subject should meet GNG. NHOCKEY is written in a way that if any subject meets the listed criteria then they consistently meet GNG. Meeting GNG is dictated by significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and no women's league or its players has been proven to be consistently well covered by the media. Hence, the leagues could not be included after several discussion. Listing leagues that do NOT meet an SNG, women's and men's (there are plenty of men's leagues that are not included in NHOCKEY and only one in North America where notability is automatically presumed by simply stepping on the ice) and thereby having the leagues "covered" by the SNG, is atypical and would likely not fly with the other NSPORTS editors. Women are included in the IIHF World Championship NHOCKEY#6. All other women's hockey players must pass GNG on their own merits (just like all hockey players and all subjects on Wikipedia). If you want this to change (and I think we all actually DO want the women's leagues to get more coverage), start with proving this player meets GNG or convince the independent media to actually start covering the leagues and its players. Yosemiter (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Yosemiter: if you can't see how this structure participates in a process of systemic bias I don't know what to tell you. But I'll concede that this is not the venue for this discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Simonm223: Per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, wikipedia guidelines follow current coverage, not lead the charge for fixing the systematic bias. Again, some of us here actually do attempt to watch and follow women's hockey. That is how we are trying to fix the system by telling the media "we want more". Loosening wikipedia SNGs to standards that will not meet GNG just because we want others to know about the subject is not allowed. Plenty of women hockey players can and do meet GNG just fine, but just not in a way that an SNG can be created. Yosemiter (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Simonm223: The notion that we hold female hockey players to a stricter standard than male ones is, frankly, laughable: no male player with Lavoie's resume would come remotely close to qualifying for an article, and no one would raise a finger to prevent its deletion for lack of notability. Do you, then, advocate that there is any reason for keeping this article other than that the subject is a woman? If so, then heck, might as well write up an article for my thirteen year old niece, who plays in a youth league. It is not that we do not understand what you're saying. It's that we don't agree with what you're saying. Ravenswing 21:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject had a collegiate career without especial distinction, and played all of ten games in the NWHL. For a player from any professional league below the level of the NHL -- including leagues with many decades of history, with teams that sometimes have recorded better attendance for single games than any NWHL team's managed in a season -- this would be an abject failure of NHOCKEY. I can understand the frustration of women's sports partisans, being one myself, but we cannot compel the world and the media to care about women's hockey, and so far, there's no evidence that they do. Ravenswing 10:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If she was a standout in College or some kind of award winner than she could be considered, but she is not. And I think we can dismiss the notion of the NWHL being somehow a "top" league regardless of its "professional" standing. Looking at the rosters it is not a destination for the world's elite, the CWHL or the SDHL can lay a better claim to that right now. It is not even attracting the top American players right now (Sidney Morin for example), but players who never even played in the top tier of collegiate hockey are there (Kayla Parsons for example).18abruce (talk) 13:15, 14 September 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. Tone 21:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ciaron Brown[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NFOOTY having never played in a fully professional league and does not have enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. PROD was removed by user who believes he may meet GNG, however, beyond basic sports reporting pertaining to his transfer from non-league to Cardiff, there seems no in depth independent coverage of him. Kosack (talk) 12:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kosack (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kosack (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON. 21.colinthompson (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draft Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, however I feel this should be kept in draft space for a bit, this maybe WP:CRYSTAL, but there seems to be a good indication he near to playing for the first team. Govvy (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: Brown appeared on the bench in an EFL Cup tie as back up to the reserve side. As Cardiff were eliminated from the competition, it would be a surprise if he made the bench again this season let alone played. Certainly highly unlikely any time soon. Kosack (talk) 06:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@Kosack: It's not always written on an article and sometimes there are insights to have if you have a little insider knowledge, my gut tells me he will pass NFooty eventually. While he was at Wealdstone FC scouts came down from, Sheff Wed, Sheff U, Bolton, Colchester, MK Dons and Cardiff to which he signed. I think he took a step up too high and he will end up going on loan to another lower league team. When I watched him play I feel he deserves to be in topflight football. Govvy (talk) 09:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, he probably will pass WP:NFOOTY one day, but the earliest he would be able to leave Cardiff on loan will be January and that's if he does. Even then, this is all just guesswork and WP:CRYSTALBALL. Kosack (talk) 10:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:10, 13 September 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, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soren Kaplan[edit]

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

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC, as only an "Affiliated Professor" in the US. Edwardx (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 11:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG with sources already present in the article and further updated based on request from this AfD. Includes additional articles and sources quoting him as a source on VICE and a book review from HuffPost. Mcvalley (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mcvalley, that HuffPost review is a blog post, so does not count towards GNG. Please point us to two sources that count towards GNG. And as the article creator, please address the COI issues raised on your talkpage. Edwardx (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This WSJ article is ... fascinating. While it doesn't have any direct bearing on this deletion discussion, I think it implies that we need to be extra careful in ensuring that any "independent" sources cited, are, in fact, truly independent. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Suffusion of Yellow. Fascinating indeed. I suppose that one might argue that there is enough in that WSJ piece for that to be one of the two sources that could count towards GNG. However, our Soren Kaplan article would have to set out that he spent $55,000 on buying copies of his own book plus a fee of $20-$30,000 to make it a "bestseller". Edwardx (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Thanks to the hard work of Philafrenzy, the article now meets WP:NPOV, and there is enough to meet WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zulfiqr[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSERIES. » Shadowowl | talk 09:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 11:46, 10 September 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 Southern Illinois University Carbondale. Tone 21:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phenomenology Research Center[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG, could not find any coverage in unaffiliated sources in a google search. Rosguill^talk 23:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete I don't see significant independent coverage from reliable sources so the GNG is not met.Sandals1 (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more opinions from the regulars
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 11:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Southern Illinois University Carbondale. Wikipedia is not a directory (WP:NOTDIRECTORY). Search finds nothing to indicate independent notability. The center exists at SIU, which is a sensible redirect target as an alternative to deletion. Bakazaka (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do not think this meets Wikipedia's notability criteria as I can find no independent, reliable sources providing coverage of the center. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or in the alternative Redirect to Southern Illinois University Carbondale per Bakazaka). Fails WP:GNG--no independent WP:RS establishing notability. Sounds like interesting stuff going on there, however! :) --David Tornheim (talk) 09:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Southern Illinois University Carbondale, merging such content as appropriate. This is required by ATD, PRESERVE and R. James500 (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No redirect. If the main university article will not even mention the center, then it is not sufficiently noteworthy to redirect there. czar 18:44, 16 September 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. Tone 21:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Datasheet Archive[edit]

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

Prod contested by creator or sock before. Created likely by the company employee (User:DatasheetArchive...). The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy: does not meet WP:NCORP & borderline WP:A7. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with all of the above, borderline A7. Utterly fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:14, 17 September 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of BET VJs/personalities[edit]

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

Unreferenced list (WP:OR?), not seeing how it meets WP:LISTN _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs major help; this article basically became frozen in time the moment 106 and Park signed off and ended the age BET had actual hosts, and the few articles this serves may be better off just connected with a category or 'they were on BET' mentions than this 2005-esque list which was never improved from the early versions of the article. Nate • (chatter) 16:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:15, 10 September 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. Tone 21:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ZappLight[edit]

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

Founded two years ago and with minimal press, not seeing how this can pass WP:NCORP. Edwardx (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Yet another spam entry created likely by paid editor(s) based on press-releases and like. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Most of the articles write about the product, not the company. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:17, 17 September 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. Tone 21:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Express Yourself (TV series)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As per the recently WP:PRODed This Is Who I Am (short) article, this is series of non-notable TV shorts that used to air on Disney Channel. Article has been unsourced since its creation in 2007 – and I can find zero mainstream media mentions of these shorts at all after some WP:BEFORE work. It is also effectively an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list in its current form. Does not pass WP:GNG and merits deletion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Express Yourself appeared on the Disney Channel which has historically had quite a lot of viewers, a channel which has been part of basic cable since 1983. Given the Disney Channel's high ratings among children specifically, a demographic which is less likely to write articles but which grow up and remember things from their childhoods vividly, we ought to be especially careful about deleting an article about a regularly occurring series of shorts that millions of people watched on TV. And this series was not just limited to the United States, in fact the Disney Channel Asia had its own Express Yourself following the same format, see tmvc.sg/project/disney-express-yourself-2-seasons/. I have found some sources: www.gq.com/story/shia-labeouf-disney-channel-poem, www.alloy.com/entertainment/disney-channel-premieres-new-express-yourself-in-response-to-haiti-disaster/, www.multichannel.com/news/disney-channel-asks-kids-express-yourself-about-haiti-298663, www.dailydot.com/upstream/found-footage-youre-watching-disney-channel-wand-id/. Those are all from the first page when I searched Google for the words "Disney Express Yourself", without quotes. I am sure there are other sources but I did not do a thorough search, that last one from The Daily Dot seems like it might meet WP:GNG, and the first one from GQ comes pretty close except maybe the coverage is not quite significant enough (not quite enough paragraphs), but The Daily Dot article is full-length, WP:GNG is met by that, and if you look at the others, you see multiple independent sources, a breadth of coverage, sustained coverage over time, establishing notability.

And I only did a very quick cursory look for sources, I am sure there are many more, I did not even put quotes around "Express Yourself" in my Google search and it was not even a news search, just a regular search. Anyway I think something millions of people watched on TV is inherently notable per Wikipedia:Inherent notability, along with meeting WP:GNG. Wikipedia has many articles on individual episodes of TV shows (as one very very notable example, To Serve Man (The Twilight Zone)), which are correctly deemed notable if enough people watch them and talk about them. Well, this is an entire series of shorts, many of them featuring people who are now very famous celebrities, watched by millions of young people who would probably remember them if you showed them a clip again. That qualifies as inherent notability, at least in my personal opinion, even though I have rarely if ever watched the Disney Channel myself, am not a fan of any of the celebrities who appeared in those segments, and have no personal stake in this matter. The article could use significant editing and also better sourcing, for instance the sources I mentioned, although I assume, not all of them are good sources. Still, they are better than nothing. I would also mention that Michael J in the previous AfD debate had some good arguments for keeping this article, too, although admittedly they were similar enough to mine that I have already covered them. Yetisyny (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only one of those that I'd consider good enough to establish notability under WP:GNG is www.multichannel.com/news/disney-channel-asks-kids-express-yourself-about-haiti-298663. (The Alloy one is weird – they're a publisher, so I'm not sure what that link is all about, and whether that counts as WP:PRIMARY or not – if not, it's similar to the multichannel.com one, I guess...) The others all look like incidental mentions while talking about other subjects (i.e. the actors themselves). In any case, for a series of TV shorts, there needs to be a lot of coverage to indicate notability, and what you've found here doesn't get it to that. Generally, if it doesn't get into Variety, etc. – and this doesn't – it's not notable enough. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable strand of PSA messages. All of the sources listed are promotional, basically being 'the network aired this PSA, which we shall now attempt to expand to a 500/1000 word article in order to get pageclicks regarding the actor delivering the message'. The Ad Council has the same conundrum; tens of PSAs a year, but all of which outside a few, are usually unnotable. Not everything on a kid's network needs an article here. Nate • (chatter) 14:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia:Inherent notability is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and not one that implies TV programs qualify for inherent notability. WP:NTV is closer to a guideline, and says: "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations [...] however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone". In this case, we have an absence of reliable sources—the multichannel source is not enough. Note that "other stuff exists" is an argument to avoid, and Twilight Zone episodes have huge amounts of coverage through critical reviews and books written about the show. (Other episode pages have been deleted before when there is a lack of secondary coverage.) — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 22:58, 10 September 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 see there has been some substantial work since this nom started and the consensus has since moved towards keep. Tone 21:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fermat's Last Theorem in fiction[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last kept in 2008 as an "in popular culture" article, but it has remained mostly trivia since then. Almost completely unsourced, some original research, and appears to fail WP:LISTN. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TRIVIA list, this could be good for TVTropes or such, but not encyclopedic for us. Summary of reliably referenced items can be merged back to parent, if not already there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not opposed to this article in principle. Fermat's Last Theorem has had more osmosis into the wider culture and for longer than pretty much anything else in higher mathematics, and it seems right to document that. At the same time, it also seems right to quarantine the topic from our coverage of the mathematics itself (it is verifiable but, one might say, marginal). XOR'easter (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There would need to be a considerable amount of literature discussing Fermat's Last Theorem in fiction to justify a full article on this. As such, this article is just WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 18:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not nearly coverage for this to warrant an article, there's already a "in popular culture" section on the Fermat's Last Theorem page. Zortwort (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the proviso that entries which don't have discussion in secondary sources are culled. I'd rather the "in popular culture" section of the Fermat's Last Theorem page were shorter; that article should be about the math, and this one about the pop-cultural diffusion. Merging the supported-by-secondary-sources items here to that section would be an acceptable but suboptimal alternative. XOR'easter (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It reads rather better with the examples that could only be sourced to TV Tropes removed. XOR'easter (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A few of the more notable examples could be added to the main article. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have discovered a marvelous reason to keep the article, but don't have the time to explain it here. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per most of the arguments given here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fermat's Last Theorem in fiction. Paul August ☎ 14:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and keep separate. It's helpful to have this as an escape valve for the cruft that would otherwise clutter up the main FLT article, and recent work by XOR'easter has greatly improved its quality by getting rid of the OR and badly sourced entries. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I came here expecting to !vote delete, but the excellent work by XOR'easter shows that there are reliable sources for this stuff. I tend to dislike this kind of cruft, but FLT has been used quite a bit in pop culture. Including all the significant content here in Fermat's Last Theorem would be way undue and there are enough sources for a standalone page. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For those who may not have seen XOR'easter recent work on sourcing the article, please have a look. Paul August ☎ 19:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (separate as now): as per other keepers and previous discussion PJTraill (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Yasnodark (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that, with the nice clean-up work, this is a pretty clear keep. One question is what to do with the section in the main FLT article; I am going to leave a comment on that talk page now, I invite others to join it. --JBL (talk) 22:49, 12 September 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. Vanamonde (talk) 04:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RadioBOSS[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Fmcoder (creator, WP:SPA) with no rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons to keep: RadioBOSS is widely known in the industry. As Wikipedia lists software of such kind, it should be included there as well for the sake of completeness. Why lack a prominent software? The leading radio streaming and directory services include guides about it e.g.: - TuneIn: https://cms.tunein.com/broadcasters/api/instructions/#radioboss - Live365: https://support.live365.com/hc/en-us/articles/360000036948-Using-RadioBoss-with-Live365 - Radio.co: https://radio.co/blog/radioboss-setup-online-radio It is listed as popular software product in the niche in some works, for instance: https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.00233 The "online radio training school" (not affiliated with software authors) has extensive set of materials about RadioBOSS: https://onlineradiotraining.com/ Fmcoder (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Wikipedia notability test is measured by the presence or absence of reliable source coverage about the topic in media, not by primary sources and proprietary training manuals. Bearcat (talk) 04:30, 17 September 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 Rename to Charlie Strapp and Froggy Ball. There is clear consensus that the series is notable, but the character is not. I am taking no automated actions here, and leaving it to the involved editors to rework and move the article. Vanamonde (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Froggy Ball[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I haven't found any instances where the character is given significant mention separate from the radio programs and movies. Sjö (talk) 06:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – svwiki doesn't have a standalone article about Froggy Ball (Swedish: Grodan Boll) or any of the other characters in the work, but I have added . If deleted, it could be recreated as a redirect to a standalone article about Kalle Stropp och Grodan Boll [sv], but that currently redirects to Thomas Funck. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move and expand to an article about the series, rather than just one character. Significant piece of modern Swedish cultural history. /Julle (talk) 10:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move and Expand per Julle, look at the 3 sources and 3 links on the Swedish article, sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalle_Stropp_och_Grodan_Boll, they establish notability for the Swedish radio series and movies. "Froggy Ball" should be a redirect to the (English-language) article on the Swedish radio and movie series (which would be a rewrite of this article, perhaps borrowing content from the Swedish Wikipedia article and translating to English). A character from a Swedish radio and movie series, however, should not have their own article on English-language Wikipedia unless they are independently notable outside of that, just redirect to the article on the series once this article is rewritten to be about the series instead of the character. The new article title should be "Charlie Strapp and Froggy Ball", the official English-language translated name of "Kalle Stropp och Grodan Boll", the name of the Swedish franchise. Yetisyny (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think the radio/book/movie series is notable and I have no objection to a redirect from Froggy Ball to "Charlie Strapp and Froggy Ball". Sjö (talk) 12:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For now. Notable character. What they do over at SvWiki is irrelevant here. BabbaQ (talk) 11:32, 16 September 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 Software as a service. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OpenSaaS[edit]

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

The term is mostly used as a marketing buzzword by just a few companies, most notably, NuCivic, which is was owned by the editor who created the article. It looks like the term has not really catched up in the industry. Closest thing to an independent reliable source is a Forbes contributed article from 2014 and this. MarioGom (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable neologism. Largely promotional. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not planning to vote on the the question of whether or not the article should be deleted. However, I would like to clarify my relationship to the article and to NuCivic. MarioGom states that NuCivic "is owned by the editor who created the article" (me). In fact, I have not owned NuCivic since December 2014, when Andrew Hoppin and I sold the company to GovDelivery (subsequently merged with Granicus). Andrew and I continued to work together at GovDelivery/Granicus until the end of 2016, when Andrew left the company. I still work at Granicus, but I no longer work on projects that can be classified as OpenSaaS. Andrew used the term in particular with reference to DKAN, a Drupal-based open source software project that NuCivic created which is used to build open data websites. In 2017, Granicus sold its DKAN/open data practice to a different company named Civic Actions. Some of the personnel who were previously NuCivic employees have gone to work at Civic Actions, but I have remained at Granicus where I am working on other projects. It is therefore fair to say that I *was* an owner of NuCivic when I created this article, but I am no longer an owner and am no longer involved directly with projects that can be called OpenSaaS. I still consider Andrew Hoppin a friend, but he and I no are no longer in business together. The question of whether OpenSaaS is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in Wikipedia is a decision that others here should make rather than me. Just now I Googled the term and found some recent uses and discussions of the concept:

https://roomify.us/blog/state-drupal-opensaas-and-what-next
https://siliconangle.com/2015/09/26/opensaas-and-the-brave-new-enterprise-world/
https://mjskok.com/the-future-is-opensaas

--Sheldon Rampton (talk) 02:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sheldon Rampton: Thanks for the clarification. I have updated my initial comment accordingly. Note that both articles should have been sent initially as a draft, as the conflict of interest policies stipulates. About the sources you mention:

1. Self-published source from someone in the Drupal comunity.
2. Brief coverage in relation to the Drupal community.
3. Marketing fluff from a company related to Drupal.

So no, there are no independent reliable sources that cover significant usage of the term beyond Drupal and companies related to the Drupal community. A mention about the term in the Drupal article might be relevant, but this article does not belong to Wikipedia. --MarioGom (talk) 12:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioGom: Thanks for the explanation about creating articles as drafts. I was fairly involved in the Wikipedia community until 9 or 10 years ago but have been less active since then. The system for creating articles as drafts did not exist when I was actively editing, and I actually did not realize that this system existed until you posted your comment here. You'll note that in the Andrew Hoppin article which I created, I made a point at the time of posting a comment in the article's talk page, disclosing my relationship with Andrew for the sake of transparency. I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's COI policy, and I think the draft system makes sense as an enhancement of that policy, so I will bear that in mind in the future. Regarding the term "OpenSaaS" specifically, the term originated within the Drupal community and was not coined by anyone at NuCivic, although it was one of the concepts that we tried to incorporate into our company strategy. Since the term did not originate with us, I did not see it as something that we owned or that entailed a conflict of interest any more than it would be a conflict of interest for someone involved in open source or agile software development to create an article about open source or agile. However, I will also concede that the adoption of OpenSaaS in the marketplace (both the commercial marketplace and the marketplace of ideas) has been less rapid than I thought would be the case a few years ago. Obviously if the term was more widely used, there would be a stronger case for retaining the article, regardless of whether you feel I had a conflict of interest in creating it. --Sheldon Rampton (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Software as a service. bd2412 T 17:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Software as a service. --Gprscrippers (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 10 September 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. Vanamonde (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al Dini[edit]

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

Not sourced, not verified, not notable. Certainly not on the East Coast as shown as UAQ only has a Western seaboard. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, that dot isn't even in UAE – it's in the exclave of Oman. Borderline G3. There is nothing at that exact coordinates except for a nearby place called "Limah" (Arabic: لیمه) that I didn't find here or at arwiki. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless inaccurate uncited three-word article. Please also note that the nominator has lived in the UAE for 25 years. Softlavender (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wrong country and state. Nothing at the location except for a few fishermen houses in the general neighborhood. Unclear that these were meant with the name. gidonb (talk) 14:04, 15 September 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. Vanamonde (talk) 15:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furniture rental companies in Bangalore[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDIR. It looks like the sole purpose of this list is promotion. Hitro talk 08:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - appears to be an insignificant list.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable list. I will note that the article creator (who has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts) also created GrabOnRent, one of the two blue-linked articles on the list.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this covert advertising. MER-C 18:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Fails LISTN.∯WBG^converse 12:30, 15 September 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. Vanamonde (talk) 15:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny Ferrari[edit]

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

Subject is not notable. Fails WP:GNG. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 08:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references cited here are not valid support for notability: three are video clips of him or people claimed as his clients simply doing their jobs, and the two that actually represent reliable sources are not coverage about him, but simply quote him as a giver of soundbite in an article about something else. This is not how you reference a person as notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:SIGCOV. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jmertel23. 2001:569:7C07:2600:78CF:8C3:486A:F535 (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, all sources I can find are routine. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 16:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is another simple case of not passing GNG. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 05:17, 16 September 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trader Sam's Enchanted Tiki Bar[edit]

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

Was dePRODed by Atlantic306 - Sources that aren't blogs fail to offer significant coverage - doesn't meet WP:NCORP in offering non-local coverage that is in any way significant and the local coverage is very sparse too - the LA weekly just has:

The newest and quirkiest tiki bar is poolside at the Disneyland Hotel and is inspired by the theme park's Jungle Cruise and the drinks "Trader Sam" bought home with him. There are lots of fun gimmicks -- the barstools can be secretly lowered by the bartenders -- and they sell a great selection of that favorite collectible, a tiki mug

which has obviously no actual depth. Also WP:NOTPROMO Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It seems WP:BEFORE wasn't followed with this one. It took only seconds to find Uproxx and LA Weekly give very in-depth significant coverage to it (this is in addition to the other LA Weekly coverage the nom already indicated above).[18][19] USA Today and the Orange County Register also have covered it.[20][21] And being one of LA Weekly 's top 5 Tiki Bars is significant too. And the Los Angeles Times calls it "wildly popular."[22] It's hard to imagine a major Disney restaurant even being considered for deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 04:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources when evaluated don't meet NCORP/GNG independance standards

Uproxx - interview with a bartender at the tiki barl what the bar tender says is obviously non-independant coverage; there's no meaningful coverage on the tiki bar apart from that
laweekly humour piece, so I wouldn't consider it reliable; also "Reviews that narrowly focus on a particular product or function without broader context (e.g. review of a particular meal without description of the restaurant as a whole) do not count as significant sources." - there's no broader context here
orange county register this is probably the best of the lot, but perhaps too narrow and also might fail "the reviews must be published outside of purely local or narrow (highly specialized) interest publications"
USA today promotional paragraph, fails "Reviews that are too generic or vague to make the determination whether the author had personal experience with the reviewed product"/being "Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject."
LA weekly top 5 same issue as USAtoday coverage
LA times mere mention

So overall there's maybe one source that can be counted. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know where to start as you've completely shifted from your nom statement premise and now attacking the significant coverage you obviously didn't know existed before the AfD. For the Uproxx coverage, even if it were only an interview, which it's not, interviews are in fact in-depth coverage by independent sources as it was the independent source that chose to interview the topic, further demonstrating notability. If it was the restaurant itself publishing an interview then you'd have a point. Obviously not the case here. But even outside of the interview there is significant coverage of the restaurant by the reporter. For the LA Weekly piece, your opinion that it's a "humor" piece is noted, but just because you find the piece amusing in some parts does not in any way make the LA Weekly a non-reliable independent source and it in fact is far more than "a review of a particular meal" and is in-depth about multiple products and even the atmosphere of the place. For the USA Today coverage, you just made the WP:BLP violating claim that USA Today reporter Arthur Levine has been paid to write a "promotional paragraph." Now that you've made that new claim you need to provide evidence of such a claim. That goes for your brand new attack on LA Weekly reporter James Bartlett in his "Top 5" piece. You need to provide any evidence that this was not Bartlett's opinion he was paid to write that. As for the Los Angeles Times explaining this is a "wildly popular" restaurant, your argument that it's just a "mere mention" is a straw man argument and a red herring as there was no claim that exact piece was more than that, but it does add to indication of its notability. --Oakshade (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the USA Today coverage, you just made the WP:BLP violating claim that USA Today reporter Arthur Levine has been paid to write a "promotional paragraph."
Arthur Levine is a travel writer covering theme parks for USA Today, so yeah, in a manner of speaking that IS what he's paid to do. Do you know ANYTHING about travel journalism? --Calton | Talk 10:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is Arhtur Levine paid by USA Today or do you have evidence he was paid by Trader Sam's Enchanted Tiki Bar?--Oakshade (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has significant coverage in reliable sources as identified above such as the second LA Weekly piece, Uproxx, also USA Today and others so passes WP:GNG, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree with the analysis of the sources: the LA Weekly piece is a lengthy review of the bar, that it is couched in a humourous tone is not relevant in the least, the uproxx article as well as the interview includes the analysis of the reporter and the Orange County Register with a daily circulation of 250,000 is a regional publication so is allowed by Corpdepth and is certainly not too narrow and the review is by an expert restaurant critic with 20 year's experience so there is enough for WP:CORPDEPTH, coverage of a bar is not going to come in academic papers Atlantic306 (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade and Atlantic306. Satisfies GNG. Moreover, ORG is irrelevant because a bar is a place (a building or part of a building), not a group of people. James500 (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, so a place of business isn't an organization, it's a building? A strange interpretation of reality, but let's run with it: what part of the building notability guideines does Trader Sam's Enchanted Tiki Bar fulfill? --Calton | Talk 10:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NGEO says that if a building satisfies GNG it is presumed to merit an article. Like every other topic that satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources listed above seem to me to be routine coverage expected for just about any bar/restaurant - I don't see significant in-depth/independent coverage. In addition, the article reads overly promotional and is not written in an encyclopedic tone and may be interspersed with OR. Those issues could be addressed through editing if there was notability... MB 00:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Routine" is defined by WP:NOTABILITY as "press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism" which the coverage is nothing of a sort. And certainly not "any bar/restaurant" receive the kind of coverage demonstrated here. That you want to label the in-depth/independent coverage (how is the coverage not independent?) as not so, well that's just contradiction to reality but readers can make up their own mind. The tone can be adjusted through regular editing. See WP:DEL-CONTENT. --Oakshade (talk) 02:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject appears to meet requirements set forth in WP:GNG as it has received significant in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources, not limited to the ones already stated above, but as well as in Medium, OC Weekly, OC Register, and surely others.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:49, 15 September 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. Vanamonde (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Heritage Flag Company[edit]

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

Two or so "local man" does something pieces that fail WP:AUD and an article that doesn't appear to mention the company - overall no coverage meeting WP:AUD and WP:CORPDEPTH for meeting WP:NCORP Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom. Also lots of these articles on small and or insignificant businesses violate WP:NOTADVERTISING immediately after being published, or later on after an editor associated with the business finds the article. This doesn't appear to be an advert but in the future someone could change it into one.Grapefruit17 (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fail GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:13, 17 September 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. Vanamonde (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adh Dhaid[edit]

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

It most certainly is not. Al Dhaid is the inland oasis town of Sharjah and while it is adjacent to UAQ's inland town of Falaj Al Moalla, there is no connection or conurbation between the two other than the road that links them across the border between the two emirates. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or correct and cite from reliable sources. The only English-language information I can find is that it is an oasis in Sharjah (as noted by the nominator): [23]. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced —AE (talk • contributions) 03:43, 17 September 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. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Duss[edit]

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

Not sourced, not notable. Certainly not on the East Coast as UAQ only has Western seaboard. Ghalil is in Afghanistan, Aqabah in Jordan. Other close by 'towns' aren't linked. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nonsensical completely uncited grossly inaccurate article. Note that the nominator has lived in the UAE for 25 years. Softlavender (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or draftify. Not in the UAE. It's an Omani village, probably placed in the UAE due to a database error ten years ago. Apparently appears on a 1970's topographic map here: [24] SportingFlyer talk 23:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is unsourced. Your source (nice find!) seems to explain some of the mystifying cruft that has been scattered all over the UAE pages - the pace and amount of change in the UAE since the 1970s is simply insane. Back then there were a bunch of desert and mountain communities, mostly semi-permanent and made of 'barasti' or palm frond houses. Some have turned into larger communities and modernised, some have simply been blown away in the wind. There weren't even metalled roads in the vast majority of the country at the time and the tribes were mostly nomadic or semi-nomadic. So, fine, change it to Oman but it's still dubious, not notable and unsourced. Ad Duss is not, as far as I can see, geo-located on that 1970s map at all. Too much energy for a three-line unsourced page, BTW! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:PILLARS. It does appear to be a genuine and distinct population center.[25] The only nearby village claimed by the article seems to be Limah and I've adjusted the article as so. I've lived in California for over 25 years but that doesn't mean I know all the towns in it. --Oakshade (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But you'd know that Los Angeles isn't in New York, right? This village is NOT IN UMM AL QUWAIN IN THE UAE. And it's still not notable (it's a coastal settlement of about 15 houses and very rural indeed) and still unsourced.

The coordinates do match a real population center in Oman, not the UAE. I've corrected the article as such. Problem solved (see WP:SOFIXIT). --Oakshade (talk) 06:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, but there's still notability WP:NPLACE. There's not even a road in Al Duss. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wikipedia's a gazetteer, populated places simply have to be verifiable per WP:GEOLAND - one of the least notable . A number of these are really difficult because they appear to have been digitized from older, probably inaccurate maps. This one's tricky as well because it appears to go by both Al Duss and Ad Duss, but its location on maps clearly shows human settlement at 25.90829°N, 56.39191°E. The sources that verify this place are probably Omani and in Arabic, though. SportingFlyer talk 06:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the infobox and page contents to put it in Oman, where it can rest in peace despite its complete and utter lack of notability or sourcing... Someone might like to move it to Al Duss to be accurate with modern naming conventions. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Recognised settlements, however small, are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GEOLAND. James500 (talk) 06:40, 15 September 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. Vanamonde (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ma'ali[edit]

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

Unsourced, unverified. There is no city of Ma'ali (Arabic for 'no problem') in Ajman. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless uncited three-word article of dubious accuracy. The nominator has lived in the UAE for 25 years. Softlavender (talk) 11:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced —AE (talk • contributions) 03:43, 17 September 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. Vanamonde (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Walters[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG. Walters was on the roster of Carolina RailHawks, but no evidence to show that he played a game in a WP:FPL. 21.colinthompson (talk) 06:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article about semi-pro footballer which doesn't appear to be able to meet the GNG. I found one Waikato Times article that looks like significant coverage, but everything else looks like routine coverage. Jogurney (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 20:56, 11 September 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. Vanamonde (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heart of America Foundation[edit]

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

An advertortorially-toned page on an unremarkable non-profit. Does not meet WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any sources offering anything resembling in-depth coverage outside of a few press-releases, all other mentions are in-passing only. No indication this organization has achieved any sort of notability; fails WP:NORG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search gave me nothing that supports a claim that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 23:08, 10 September 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. Vanamonde (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maja Tatić[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. SummerPhD^v2.0 05:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Representing her country in Eurovision seems to hit WP:NBAND criterion 12 "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.", and is certainly the equivalent of all the sportspeople who are considered notable because they have represented their country. PamD 09:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That novel interpretation makes every contestant on every episode of (country x) Idol, (Country)'s Got Talent, The Voice, etc. notable, despite WP:BLP1E. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NBAND. No, the main Eurovision event is not comparable to Idol and Talent competitions, as it's the most prestigious pop festival of the whole continent (no matter what I personally think about it). And it's not as if she fell in total oblivion since, she continued to have a decent career, and there's persistent coverage in regional media e.g. 2018 2014 2010. No such user (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure which criterion of NBAND you feel she meets. PamD cites 12, with an interpretation that clearly would qualify hundreds of contestants from American Idol alone. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Representing a country at Eurovision is a major achievement: I think that qualifies as meeting WP:NMUSIC #9 as she had to win the national competition to go to Eurovision. Bondegezou (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If she won "a major music competition", a source to that effect would be helpful. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a source saying she represented Bosnia at the 2002 Eurovision. Ergo, she was selected as the Bosnian representative. Ergo, she achieved something akin to winning a major (i.e. national) music competition (whatever the precise details of the 2002 Bosnian selection system). Bondegezou (talk) 12:11, 17 September 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. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nanjing No.13 Middle School[edit]

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

Non-notable middle school, even though the article incorrectly says it is a senior high school. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 20:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 20:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe move to Nanjing No.13 High School Education Group, but this article seems to require editors with good Chinese language skills. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reading the machine translation of the article on the Chinese Wikipedia and the English-language section of the school's web site, it looks like something was lost in translation and this is a high school. "Middle school" might mean something different in China to what it means in the US. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe move to Nanjing No.13 High School because the name on the school badge is "High School" not "Middle School". — phenolla 🖋 ^{talk · contribs} 03:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did you find that? The logo I found on the web site says Nanjing No.13 Middle School. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've checked the badge on the Chinese website. The one with name "high school" was an old badge and no longer used. Current name on the badge is "Nanjing No.13 Middle School" as the official website shows. Although "middle school" on the school logo, it is a senior high school, because I was graduate from there. Also, the official website on the page links to the senior high school part of the education group. I think the "official" translation given by the school is wrong, so it's better and safer to move it to Nanjing No.13 High School Education Group. — phenolla 🖋 ^{talk · contribs} 17:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Education group? How about Nanjing No. 13 School instead? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Read http://www.nj13z.cn/News/Details/2994. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - conditionally. I believe that "middle school" in China is directly equivalent to "high school" as used in the West. (The notion being it was in the middle between basic 3R type education and directed, what the West would call "post-secondary" education). I'm not certain of my memory on this, but I believe WhisperToMe would have specific knowledge and I am pinging him simply for clarification. I could care less how he !votes! John from Idegon (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Additonal info provided by WTM clears up my issue and moves this from just a keep to a Strong keep. John from Idegon (talk) 01:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In China what they call a "middle school" or zhōngxué (中学) really means any secondary school; even though many such zhongxue are called 'middle school" in English they're just using a super-literal translation of each character, and the name in Chinese uses zhōngxué. The question is whether this "middle school" has a senior high school section or not; my understanding is most do, but some do not. The actual Chinese words for junior high school/middle school (in the American sense) is 初中 chūzhōng, while senior high school is 高中 gāozhōng. Wikipedia:WikiProject China may be happy to help analyze the site or find additional information.
- The Chinese name of this institution is 南京市第十三中学 so I'll do my best to see if the website specifies the level of education...
- WhisperToMe (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: An English page from Bond International College http://www.bondcollege.com/index.php/news/202-bond-partnered-up-with-nanjing-no-13-middle-school states: "In 2005, Bond brought quality Ontario secondary classes into Jiangsu, and established a Canada-China double diploma program with Nanjing No. 13 Middle School. Since then, more than 300 Chinese students have started their higher education in the most popular universities in Canada." - I think it's almost certain this has a senior high section. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - This could help establish notability, too. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as "南京十三中邦德国际高中2004年创办." states: "南京十三中邦德国际高中2004年创办,2005年正式招生。" which should mean "Nanjing No. 13 China-Bond International Senior High School was founded in 2004, and it officially enrolled students in 2005." You can check the Chinese at mdbg.net. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep, as I do not see a rationale for deletion. While the Chinese language articles seems to have suffered severely from linkrot this QQ news source attributed to 南京晨报 would seem to be a reasonable source, if a bit light on the analysis side. There also seems to be weak coverage of some sort of technology fair held there, though I would probably look for sources in a print newspaper (or republication thereof) for that as well. Perhaps the article ought to be more clear on what 中学 means, but I doubt that a major (apparently "key"?) high school at a major population center would fail to be covered in secondary sources. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Side note, maybe it being a 4 star school (whatever that implies) should be sourced to the educational assessment whateveritscalled instead of the school website (or whatever it happens to be sourced to right now), if no suitable secondary sources are found. I can't work out whether if they were supposed to have been reassessed in the 2017 assessment though. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:18, 10 September 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. Vanamonde (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Arrupe Training Center for Leaders and Educators[edit]

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

Promo, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 21:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't have a final opinion because I haven't heard what others have had to say yet, but as a response to the Nom, I, after reading the article don't see it a promo. I also did a google search and found quite a few sites discussing the topic therefore I ask, in what way does it violate WP:GNG. (If I am missing something politely let me know). Grapefruit17 (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. At first, I noticed a red flag: This Polish NGO does not have a Polish Wikipedia page yet. Checking the sources, I am not seeing any in-depth coverage, it's either self-published/press releases or mentions in passing. Hence my initial inclination was delete, but doing a search in Polish I saw a few description sentences ('founded in...' etc.) in Leszek Molendowski (January 2009). Dzieje ojców jezuitów i szkolnictwa jezuickiego w Gdyni. Wydawn. "Avalon". ISBN 978-83-60448-80-9. but snippet view is preventing me from detailed analysis. It does have an entry in Małgorzata Sokołowska (2006). Encyklopedia Gdyni. Verbi Causa. ISBN 978-83-921571-8-2., a regional encyclopedia, through again, a snippet view prevents a more detailed comment. That said, if an organization has an entry in another encyclopedia (even if very regional), I think it is good enough to get a page in Wikipedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:09, 10 September 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. Vanamonde (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shayne Hawke[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only finding routine sources, nothing to support GNG - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 01:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - He has some coverage that is both national and local: [26], [27], [28], [29]. Nikki♥311 21:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I'd support a potential redirect to any of his associated subjects. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 05:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG or show notability as a pro wrestler. Papaursa (talk) 16:28, 10 September 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Father Magnus Murray[edit]

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

Fails WP:PERP. reddogsix (talk) 03:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Catholic Church sexual abuse cases. Fails WP:PERP and is a case of WP:BLP1E. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 06:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be the subject of ongoing newspaper article over more than a decade. But this should be renamed without the title prefix. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/rename per Graeme B. Grutness...wha? 03:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/rename as per above.Emendment (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/rename as above. Renaming is tricky as there is both another Magnus Murray and a Max Murray and his middle name is proving elusive. Happy to go along with any renaming proposal, leaving it to the experts.Nankai (talk) 07:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- propose title Magnus William Murray (just tracked down his middler)Nankai (talk) 07:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Magnus Murray (Catholic priest) or Magnus Murray (convicted sex offender) would perhaps be better? Grutness...wha? 11:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - "priest" seems more npov than "convicted offender" since he spent more time as the formerNankai (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. Grutness...wha? 01:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree also.Emendment (talk) 08:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Sufficient referencing, and not single event (sadly). Aoziwe (talk) 13:47, 14 September 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Service record of Heinrich Himmler[edit]

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

An unneeded content fork & indiscriminate collection of information; key milestones of the subject's career are already included in the main article. Appears to be mostly WP:OR. Significant RS coverage not found. Created by Special:Contributions/OberRanks currently site-banned for fabricating content and sources. For more info, please see ANI:OberRanks_and_fabricated_sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I suppose the documents might pass GNG, what we actually have is a POVFORK of Heinrich Himmler, with unsourced information (e.g. his pre 1929 ranks) and content that is fairly off topic to Himmler's service record - e.g. the uniforms and rank insignia he wore.Icewhiz (talk) 06:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per both the above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Addendum): Incidentally, note also the bizarre (mis-)definition of this article's topic. Ostensibly, according to the lead sentence, the article's topic is not some sub-aspect of somebody's biography, but a physical pile of papers ("The service record of Heinrich Himmler was a collection of official SS documents maintained at the SS Personalhauptamt in Berlin"). That pile of papers is somehow supposed to be simultaneously the article's topic, its main source about itself, and its own evidence of notability. That's nonsense, of course: while some historians may well have consulted and cited those papers as sources in their research, none has treated them as an independent object of scholarly interest in their own right. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like something that might be good for a transcription at Wikisource, perhaps? But not a Wikipedia article - and the article itself is horribly confused over what it's supposed to be about. The more I look at it, the more it seems like some sort of SYNTH essay trying to fork a few parts of the subject from the main Heinrich Himmler article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Trouble about Wikisource is, the papers are not even published, afaics. Just some pages of bureaucratic routine documents collecting dust in some archive box somewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, so no good as a source for anything then (and even less appropriate as a Wikipedia article subject). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per all the above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any unique reliably sourced material to Heinrich Himmler. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give an estimation of which parts that might be, in your view? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The awards and decorations are the main thing. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The history of the main Heinrich Himmler article just prior to the creation of this article [30] shows that there was substantial disagreement about the appropriateness of just that material there, and OberRanks then created this fork here mainly in order to avoid its deletion, when he realized there was no consensus for keeping it there. In light of this, anybody who might now want to reinsert that material in the main article would certainly first have to garner a substantially new consensus there; a merger (even just a partial one) is not something we at this AfD could simply mandate even if we wanted to. Moreover, since that material is already in the history of the main article, there would still be no need for a redirect and preserved history here (e.g. for the sake of attribution), even if a restitution on the main article were to be done eventually. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't aware of that. Personally I don't care enough to start that argument again, but I believe they are germane to his article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since significant coverage by independent sources is lacking, the topic itself does not want warrant a stand-alone article. I am not very well versed in US copyright laws, but I wonder, if the File:HimmlerRecord.jpg is correctly licensed, because an employee of the US government may have prepared a copy, but certainly not the original document. Himmler's service record is not an original work of the Federal Government of the US.--Assayer (talk) 11:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I do not believe it is needed; there may be a point or two which could be entered into the main GA article with RS cite, of course, but upon a very quick review just now, I did not see anything that "jumped out at me", in that regard, so to speak. Someone with more time, should give it a once over. Kierzek (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As WP:POVFORK and WP:COATRACK. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am with Hawkeye on this. Carrite (talk) 06:28, 17 September 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. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Marin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, uses only two sources, violates WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. THE DIAZ ^{userpage • talk • contribs} 03:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question for nominator @The Diaz: The previous AfD closed as Keep with a suggestion to move the page to Suicide of Michael Marin as an alternative to deletion. Do you object to that move proposal? Bakazaka (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakazaka: Yes. Its lack of sources would fail WP:GNG and violate WP:NOTNEWS. THE DIAZ ^{userpage • talk • contribs} 00:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like an obituary, fails 1Event. Reywas92^Talk 23:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per Reywas92. Individual and event of his death seems completely unremarkable and uninteresting. There is insufficient WP:RS in the lengthy article. However, I did find more WP:RS, here. If there is more WP:RS from independent sources that make this person seem worth having an article about, I might reconsider my !vote. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per previous AfD here. I do see he is highlighted this book. The article definitely needs to include some of the these resources and focus on what the WP:RS says about him rather than the long rambling mostly unsourced narrative that indeed sounds more like an Obit. Cullen328 included some important WP:RS there that changed my mind. It's unfortunate that the WP:RS has not been used since then. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. There are more sources besides the two in the article. There is a lot of coverage in GNews: [31] [32] [33]. 1E is not on the face of it a factor, as sources cover his whole life in detail. Even if it was a factor, the only result would be a page move to the event. NOTNEWS is not on the face of it a factor, because sources deal with events in his life several decades before the sources were published ("news" must be very recent). "Reads like an obituary" is not a grounds for deletion. It is difficult to see how BLP can apply to someone who died six years ago. James500 (talk) 02:52, 15 September 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Wars (gaming)[edit]

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

I declined a notability prod because this article was already prodded and recreated. However, a good faith google search didn't turn up any independent, reliable sources that show notability. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to fail WP:NEVENT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gets a mention as being run by Historical Miniatures Gaming Society, which I just stubbified from its clearly-COI version. I'd prefer a redirect here per WP:ATD. --Izno (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NEVENT. SportingFlyer talk 05:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NEVENT or WP:GNG, did find a local piece here ("Hobbyists Experience War in Miniature"), but a lot more is needed for a standalone article, a redirect to Historical Miniatures Gaming Society would be okay (although that needs more sources). Coolabahapple (talk) 09:36, 13 September 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tears (Rush song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Already been to AfD which was closed as redirect. Recently returned to an article twice. Rather than play an editors' two step I have brought it back to AfD. No opinion from me, let's get an agreement (again). Richhoncho (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems that the recent cover version by Alice in Chains has helped it meet WP:GNG although it fails WP:NSONG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should stay, considering it has 10 sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.174.5.52 (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the above IP is a probable sock of User:Danieleb82. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This coming for a deletionist :P - FlightTime (open channel) 18:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I must have listened to 2112 dozens of times, but I can't remember the song at all! As a song on an album, it's not notable, but the Alice in Chains single release meets GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 21:32, 16 September 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. I'm closing as "soft' delete as arguments, other than noms, were "weak" delete. Preferably reliable secondary sources will be available to the requester. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DHTMLX[edit]

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

Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 14:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 14:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 14:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 14:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. So, there's a book about this library, for some reason, but Packt, the publisher, is a print-on-demand press and so it's an SPS. I got a fair number of Google Scholar hits, but none provide significant coverage, and I can't see how a verifiable article could be assembled from them. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I too am seeing a lot of mentions, but nothing reliable and substantive enough to incontrovertibly meet the GNG threshold. Vanamonde (talk) 15:03, 17 September 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Zo[edit]

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

Non-notable contestant on a reality singing show, failing WP:NMUSIC for her quick elimination and lack of WP:CHART activity. Teemu08 (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Competing on a television show does not pass the notability requirements.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article doesn't establish any notability and the two references don't either.Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:55, 13 September 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. Vanamonde (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mikese Morse[edit]

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

The subject does not meet the notability guidelines for amateur athletes specified in WP:NCOLLATH, nor does his subsequent arrest unrelated to sports raise this article to notability. His collegiate sports activities could be merged into the USF and U-Miami articles. JGHowes ^talk 11:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 12:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 12:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NTRACK and the coverage is routine sports reporting, primarily from his college's papers, so WP:GNG is not met. Papaursa (talk) 17:57, 16 September 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

João Lopes[edit]

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

Lacks GNG and does not satisfy SNG (NFOOTY) as he does not play for a team in a league recognized at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues#List_of_fully_professional_leagues Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and GS. Looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON; can be recreated if and when he appears for Santa Clara in the Primeira Liga. 21.colinthompson (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless the player makes his debut, he still fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 20:51, 11 September 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. Vanamonde (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Graph pax[edit]

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

Fails WP:NAD and is an article based on an abbreviation. AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced. Perhaps the concept of graphics package could be notable, but might as well create a proper, referenced article from scratch rather than trying to reference this stub. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:12, 10 September 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. WP:SNOW keep. There's no argument of a lack of notability, and the consensus is that other problems with the article are not so severe as to justify deletion. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomous sensory meridian response[edit]

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

Per WP:TNT

The article is absolutely hopelessly pseudoscientific. I mean, it's own small one-paragraph section "clinical implications" states that "There is no scientific data nor any clinical trials showing evidence that might support or refute any clinical benefits or dangers of ASMR, with claims to therapeutic efficacy remaining based on voluminous personal anecdotal accounts by those who attribute the positive effect on anxiety, depression, and insomnia to ASMR video media"

Yet the rest of the article is written as if the ASMR and its claimed benefits are a fact Openlydialectic (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't agree with the reasoning provided to have the article deleted. Looks to me like it could use some work, but deletion is too far. Handoto (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ASMR has received more than enough media attention for (in my opinion) it to exist as a Wikipedia article. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 03:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am afraid you've misread the nomination, my friend. I am not proposing the articles deletion per lack of importance, I am proposing it per severe lack of anything encyclopedic within the article. It's so bad it reads like one of those antivaccer websites, only the topic's different Openlydialectic (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, but even so I dont think its enough... most of the articles fine and the problimatic stuff can easily be fixed. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 07:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The article is not "hopelessly pseudoscientific". I'm not sure if there is any pseudoscience in the article at all. Most of it discusses the history of discussions of the phenomenon, cultural influences, types of ASMR videos, etc. Only a very small portion of the article discusses any claimed therapeutic benefits or lack thereof. By all means, if you think the sourcing can be improved, improve it. But the idea that the article needs WP:TNT is absurd. For the most part it's well sourced. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article seems pretty bloated, but I don't think that justifies removing it entirely. ~ JoshDuffMan (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even speedy keep. The subject is clearly notable. The article is definitely bloated and has some pseudoscience that needs to be trimmed, but since when is that a reason to nuke? WP:BEFORE clearly says "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." That's definitely the case here. This article meets zero of the reasons over at WP:DEL-REASON. AfD is not for cleanup. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 21:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes notability; WP:BEFORE clearly in affect. Blackguard 17:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Deleting this entry isn't the answer. Only an article that was totally devoid of any factual content would be a candidate for that. Yes this needs some serious editing. Deleting the article in it's entirely is a misuse of the process.gregDT (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The phenomenon is very notable as evidenced by many sources and is worth keeping. Just needs a major clean-up.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 17:42, 12 September 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. Vanamonde (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Runforthecube[edit]

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

There does not appear to be significant coverage in reliable independent sources about this YouTuber who is thus non-notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is referenced overwhelmingly to either his own or other people's YouTube videos, which are not valid or reliable support for notability, while the three references that actually qualify as reliable sources include a Q&A interview in which he's speaking about himself, and a glancing namecheck of his existence in coverage of something else — so there's only one source ("Learn how to pronounce Guillaume Latendresse terribly") that's actually contributing anything at all toward demonstrating his notability, which is not enough all by itself. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 10 September 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mine Blower[edit]

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

I have concerns that this roller coaster might not meet General Notability Guidelines. There are limited third party sources covering the roller coaster. Also, the ride experience section has some weasel words in it. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – That article is in pretty bad shape and needs a lot of work, but it's apparent from the Google News search that there is a ton of coverage in the Orlando Sentinel and other local publications, and some coverage in national publications such as NY Times, CNN, and USA Today. Other than the fact it desperately needs some cleanup, I don't see a strong reason to delete. By the way, you may want to start advertising these proposed coaster deletions you've been submitting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks as a courtesy. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GoneIn60, didn't realize there was a WikiProject on Amusement Parks! Anyway I've already notified now. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Give the editors who regularly contribute to amusement-related pages a chance to improve this article. I can eventually find several reliable sources and provide some rewrites but not in the immediate future.—JlACEer (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As has also been noted above, with some reference examples, this article meets the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 01:33, 12 September 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 is that subject is not notable per WP:NPOL, coverage is highly local and likely to remain so. Why the relatively long closing statement? Essentially to state that I'm willing to restore this should, per Vanamonde, an addition indpendent (non-local) source be discovered. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Brandman[edit]

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

Orphan article about a non-notable City Council Member. Sources used are primarily incidental mentions or even non-mentions used to make article subject look notable when he is not. (Additionally, many of the statements fail to follow the neutral point of view policy and are not supported by the refs attached to them.)

These refs for statements in this article don't even mention Jordan Brandman:

Ref 3: "Bill Campbell's Third District Report".
Ref 4: "Mara Brandman".
Ref 8: "Angels threaten to leave Anaheim, Anaheim responds by giving team three more years to do so".
Ref 9: "Angels renew stadium talks with Anaheim after striking out in Tustin".
Ref 11: "Anaheim OKs Convention Center Expansion Bonds".
Ref 15: "Anaheim Council Approves Another Hotel Subsidy Deal".
Ref 16: "Wincome Group, Disney to get $550 million from tax revenues for building luxury hotels".
Ref 19: "Disney takes stand on Anaheim elections".
Ref 22: "Anaheim voters say overwhelmingly, yes, we want council districts".

These refs mention Brandman only incidentally (like noting which Councilmember voted which way):

Ref 7: "Anaheim City Council to Vote on $158 Million GardenWalk Hotel Giveaway Tuesday!".
Ref 13: "Grand Jury Provides More Fodder for Anaheim Battle Over Convention Center Financing".
Ref 17: "Anaheim City Council Approves Massive Luxury Hotel Subsidy Deals".

These refs, all from a single source (Voice of OC), mention Brandman but do so alongside everyone else running for Council:

Ref 6: "Electeds Financed by Disneyland Rushed to Support Tax Shield for Resort".
Ref 18: "Disney Breaks Its Own Spending Record in This Year's Anaheim Council Election".

These refs, all from a single source (Voice of OC), do provide coverage of Brandman:

Ref 5: "Jordan Brandman's $24,000 Wiki-Report".
Ref 20: "Anaheim City Council Delays Action on Council Districts".
Ref 21: "Brandman Vows to Support Living Wage and Council Districts".

This ref is not a reliable source, as it is Ballotpedia:

Ref 2: "Municipal Elections in Anaheim, California (2016)".

These refs are primary sources from the City of Anaheim:

Ref 1 (his biography): "Council Member Jordan Brandman". Archived from the original on August 12, 2014.
Ref 10 (heavy interpretation, violating the "No Original Research" rule): "Anaheim City Council meeting minutes March 11, 2014".

These refs are offline primary source documents that appear to be heavily interpreted which would violate the "No Original Research" rule:

Ref 12: "Sworn statement obtained via PRA."
Ref 14: "City Council meeting minutes July 26, 2016; legal documents obtained via PRA." OCNative (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America -related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Anaheim is not a large enough city to hand all of its city councillors an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NPOL #2 — that privilege accrues only to internationally prominent global cities like New York City or Chicago or Toronto or Los Angeles, not to every city that exists. But the sourcing here — which consists mainly of primary sources and a community hyperlocal rather than any strong evidence of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage beyond his hometown alone — is nowhere near solid enough to deem him a special case over and above most other not inherently notable city councillors in non-global cities. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There's a lot of coverage from the Orange County Register and other local media, which I'm not giving much weight to. There's also this piece analyzing his election. I'm not finding much else, so I'm going with "delete" at the moment, but if another source is found I could be persuaded to switch. Vanamonde (talk) 14:59, 17 September 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.