Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 April	23 April >

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 delete. G3 hoax and/or A11 made up. Primefac (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Nvation[edit]

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

Prod contested. Non-notable future game with no actual release date. Also per WP:CRYSTAL CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cranial nerve examination[edit]

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

Has violated WP:NOTHOWTO since the day it was created, and is only getting worse. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article could indeed be reworded, but as with other forms of medical exam that we have here (see {{Medical records and physical exam}}), it is notable enough to warrant an encylopedic entry. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Savegable We have a lot of excellent sources[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the fence but savable DarjeelingTea (talk) 07:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be a relevant procedure, covered by diverse] RS. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Franklin[edit]

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

The only reference does not name the subject; PROD was removed. Ymblanter (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability per WP:GNG, tried to search for him and only source I could see was IMDb (Suonii180 (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article lacks sufficient content and does not have any credible sources. Bmbaker88 (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 07:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the only sources a WP:BEFORE presents are blogs and tabloids, so failing WP:ANYBIO. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable WP:NACTOR.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Main[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY, as he has apparently never played in a top-tier league. No indications of notability; I'm barely able to verify he exists. Primefac (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I declined a speedy deletion request for this as I gave it the benefit of the doubt around "professional footballer". NFOOTY states that he has to have played for a professional side in a professional match, there is no evidence that is the case. I can only find evidence that he was once able to purchase champions league tickets for Steaua Bucharest. His name would appear to be Adrian Main-Keesy as that is what the one ref on the page calls him. He is not covered in third-party reliable sources and as such should be deleted. Woody (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete' - The football club exists, see the following link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SC_Bac%C4%83u_(2010)

Keesy Adrian Main is a football player in the current squad with number 17 name= Adrian Keesy.

In Dutch the first names are written first. But in Romanian language the surnames are written first, for that reason, Main is not mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Football Europe (talk • contribs) 11:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can't use Wikipedia as a reference for Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Not delete'~~ - The wikipedia-article about the football club is a proof that the football club exists.

The football club exists, see also the following link:

http://liga2.prosport.ro/echipe/seria-1/sc-bacau-7043518/stiri

http://liga2.prosport.ro/

And the newspaper article? Why is this not a proof? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Football Europe (talk • contribs) 16:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

striking duplicate !vote. Primefac (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Not delete'~~ - Which duplicate? May I have an opinion?

Why did you change the article completely?

You have deleted a lot of data, including references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Football Europe (talk • contribs) 08:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

striking again. Primefac (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Football Europe, in a deletion discussion you only get one vote. You can't just keep voting "keep" in some sort of attempt to fool the closing admins that there are more parties interested. As for removing information - it was incredibly promotional. Phrases like He is also an excellent passer and he creates space with a solid first-touch and a general lack of sourcing leads me to conclude you were/are just trying to promote Main. Now, add some sourcing and it'll be a different story altogether. Primefac (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, Thanks for your advice. I have modified the text. I have also added references. What should I do to fix my article and not be deleted? May I change the title of Adrian Main in Adrian Keesy Main (footballer, born 1993). Then it becomes better recognized. Thanks in advance for your response! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Football Europe (talk • contribs) 17:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The only fully professional league in Romania is Liga I. He plays on a Liga III team, which would be even lower ranked than Liga II, which is not even enough to be considered notable. So he does not qualify under normal football inclusion rules. The articles connected to are not about Main, but only mention him briesfly in passing in covering matches. This is far too little to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sc Bacau is a football club with tradition for years in league I. When Adrian Keesy signed, the football club was still in league II.

He has a contract for professional footballer. Due to financial problems, they are now temporarily in league III. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Football Europe (talk • contribs) 17:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, there are many professional football players who play temporarily in lower leagues.
Delete per Woody and John Pack Lambert; does not seem to have actualy played in a professional leage, and as such fails the requirements of WP:NFOOTY. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Govt. Industrial Training Institute Panchkula[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:V JMHamo (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. South Nashua (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is a degree-awarding vocational higher secondary institution, and articles on such institutions have been generally kept provided they are verifiable (WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). This ITI is listed in the official list of government approved ITIs, so verifiabilty, at least, is not an issue. For nontrivial coverage, see this article in the Dainik Bhaskar, or this one in Amar Ujala. I'm sure more such articles can be found (e.g., search for the name of the institution in Hindi -- "आईटीआई पंचकूला", or literally, ITI Panchkula). — Stringy Acid (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The news articles mentioned are about the lack of a canteen and enrolment. Hardly newsworthy and not enough to merit a Wikipedia entry. Also, another main issue with the page is the lack of any independent sources with which to verify, apart from an entry in a directory. There is no 'significant independent coverage or recognition' Thus, it clearly fails WP:NRV David.moreno72 08:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article lacks information and does not seem to be worth keeping. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 07:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Various exercises in WP:BEFORE indicate that the only results are [2]; as such no notability established. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'm going to close this instead of relisting so that editors can focus on the article instead of this discussion. Participants think McLerran might be notable, but that the article needs work. Mackensen (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Little Joe McLerran[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN JMHamo (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

contest the nomination "Contest this speedy deletion". This my first Wikipedia article and I have been slow to understand the format and the method (coding) for referencing in particular. I have followed through and imbedded references through the article and feel confident the references support Little Joe McLerran's article a place on Wikipedia. For one he was the first place winner of the prestigious "IBC" solo-duo blues challenge award in 2009. Second he was the leader of the first band to EVER perform a public concert in Saudi Arabia (2010) and thirdly Little Joe was inducted into the Oklahoma Jazz Hall of Fame in 2013. I welcome all comments and suggestions that might improve this article. Thank you,Robmclerran (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Robmclerran[reply]
Keep The article is very poor (no offence to its author), but that's not a reason for deletion. But, the subject might pass WP:MUSICBIO on points #4 (national concert tour in a soveriegn country, covered by The Wall Street Journal), and #9 (won a major award- International Blues Festival?). Needs a helluva lot of work to reduce it down to reliably sourced material, per WP:BLP, but that can probably be done... — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per O Fortuna (normally wouldn't bother, but adding my voice since this is a poorly attended AFD). The references provided, and the WSJ article in particular, are sufficient to establish notability. The article continues to need some work, but thanks to the creator for taking the time to create it. Martinp (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a blatant hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Faith of the Furious[edit]

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

Too soon and no film with this name is announced yet. Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 20:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If it is real it fails too soon. I see some evidence that this name is being used as a parody of The Fate of the Furious. - Pmedema (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having the article at this stage in the film's development is pretty much a non-starter for the Film Project's policies and guidelines (see WP:NFF). There's no real world info available yet (including the alleged title of the film) that warrants more than a blurb in the franchise article. Millahnna (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON, at the very least. But, as I can't find a single source that uses this title for the next film in the franchise, it could very well be a flat out WP:HOAX as well. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't find anything reliable that verifies that this is the name for the movie. The most I found was this, which is a parody of the movie. I'm leaning towards this being a hoax, honestly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to speedy this as a hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MS Regal Star[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG and no reliable third party sources to be found on the subject. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - was in the process of submitting an identical AfD and got beaten to the draw! Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't know much about our ship notability standards, but for the purpose of GNG these links might be significant coverage: [3][4][5][6]. Unfortunately, most of them are in languages I don't speak so I can't say for sure. Daß Wölf 20:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can run them through Google Translate to see if I can get the gist of what they are saying (unless anyone who is fluent in Swedish could translate) --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:SHIPS convention has been that all ships over 100 tons/100 ft long, particularly those that do not belong to any vessel class, are notable. The article of course requires improvement (infobox etc.). Tupsumato (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Tupsumato. Kablammo (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article bashed into shape, GNG now shown to be met. Mjroots (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mjroots, great work again. Parsecboy (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – article has been expanded and sourced nicely. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Daß Wölf 02:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as usual for significantly-sized ship articles at AFD. It always turns out that development is possible, thanks to constructive SHIPS editors. Take note, would-be ship-deleters, find another prey! :) --do ncr am 01:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tupsumato. Manxruler (talk) 09:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MS Sea Wind[edit]

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

A non-notable cargo ship. Earlier PROD removed by author. No assertion of any notability or even significance. No references. No reason to be on Wikipedia. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A look at the ship's article on the Finnish Wikipedia reveals quite a bit of content that could be translated into English, as well plenty of valid, reliable sources, although most of them seem to focus on one event in the history of the vessel. This extensive document from the Swedish Accident Investigation Board details a fire aboard the ship in 2008 that forced the evacuation of passengers by helicopter, an event that appears to have been widely covered in Finnish and Swedish news (and in English, to a lesser extent; a quick glance shows articles in USA Today, The London Evening Standard, and others). I wouldn't suggest that such a minor incident is enough to confer notability by itself, but the vessel has been in service for 45 years under several different names, and was the SeaWind Line's first (and last) ship. I consider it very likely that the ship has received other coverage in non-English sources over the decades, though I can't immediately prove it, so I'll be withholding a keep vote until someone else can. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Also, WP:SHIPS convention has been that all ships over 100 tons/100 ft long, particularly those that do not belong to any vessel class, are notable. The article of course requires improvement (infobox etc.). Tupsumato (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tupsumato: I'm working on it! Mjroots (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in accordance with policy mentioned above. Kablammo (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've bashed the article into something resembling a shape and think that GNG is now met. Mjroots (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the above comments. Great work improving the article, Mjroots. Parsecboy (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been vastly improved. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Mandel[edit]

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

An unremarkable YouTuber; sourcing is not suitable for a BLP. Notability is not inherited from the better known father. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - there is some coverage (around 88 google-news hits (after jumping to last)) - and actually some of it is from RS. While notability is not inherited, if you receive coverage due to being the son of, the coverage may make you notable. For instance these pieces - [7] [8].Icewhiz (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage is not indepth enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JPL; a WP:BEFORE brings up plenty of coverage in blogs, zines and other non-reliable sources; instead of 'umping to last' ;) I did a news-specific narrow search and came up with even more blogs, zines, etc, with an occasional local news outlet, in the coverage. No third party, independent coverage; fails WP:ANYBIO. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of neurofibromatosis clinics[edit]

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

We are not a directory. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Brandmeister^talk 19:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTLINKFARM. Ajf773 (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not directory and fails WP:LISTN - no sources given as to why this type of clinic is somehow important. Jytdog (talk) 04:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTDIRECTORY DarjeelingTea (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above; effectively a U5. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:NOTDIRECTORY.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Chariton[edit]

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

Non notable subject has been tagged with notability tag since July 2016. Currently has three references mostly from trade publications. Claims that subject has had positions at foxnews and others are likely just self-written bio information probably written by subject himself. Would need independent references to claim holding positions at said news outlets. Nevertheless, notability is not inherited from any news organization that he might or might not have contributed to. Fails WP:GNG. Antonioatrylia (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have concerns here that media journalists who are associated with non-MSM are facing a bias because the sources that we count as notable are main-stream. And the point that notability is not drawn from the news organisation you belong to is debatable. As an viewer external to the American situation, I feel that this point needs to be debated. In a modern world, notability needs to take into account the whole picture. AshLin (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. I've read the comment by @AshLin: and agree in principle, but Chariton still needs to go.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree the subject lacks notability- and that reliable sources do not seem to exist in any form that cover him as himself rather than through the stories he is running: [9]. There is no persistence or depth of coverage of him in independent sources. Fails WP:ANYBIO, with certainly no prejudice at against AshLin's cremarks touching on possible WP:BIAS; I agree that's a deabate that most certainly needs to be had. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, under condition As long as this article can be properly and independently sourced, I believe Jordan Chariton maintains the required notability. As the main individual on TYT Politics, he has a large audience online. HeathIsling (22:13 GMT, 29th April 2017) —Preceding undated comment added 21:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia built around reliable source coverage. There is not enough coverage of Chariton, and so no justification for an article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of festivals in Central Luzon[edit]

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

This list has been split off from the main article at List of festivals in the Philippines. It is useful to organise them by area, but since the original article was mainly full of non-notable (redlinked) festivals, this list on its own has few inclusion-worthy events. Most of it rehashes this and similar calendars.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they follow the same format:

– Quasar G ^{t - c} 12:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, Due to the article being limited to a small geographic area, it makes it difficult to research. There is also the language barrier for many editors.Dean Esmay (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but reorganize or rewrite the articles. All of the articles are valid splits, and many of the festivals have been covered in sources. However, maybe it would be a good idea to impose some kind of inclusion criteria: what criteria would depend on discussion, but I would suggest maybe festivals that have been covered by national sources, or have a major significance to the province. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Majority of the list entries on each article are non-notable. Furthermore the geographic selection criteria seems vague and unlikely to be notable for separate list articles. Ajf773 (talk) 10:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this entirely arbitrary listing, or merge what can be saved. Bearian (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge back into main article. The sourcing for each individual festival is not absolutely bereft; but a WP:BEFORE on the actual list subject suggests that it is not covered as a standalone subject by any relaible sources. Fails GNG. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anevay[edit]

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

There are not enough sources to prove notability. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG. The only non associated source (treehugger) that mentions the company reads like a brochure. This is clearly a promotional article and does not have its place on wikipedia yet. Domdeparis (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional and lacking reliable sourcing. I came this close to nominating it for speedy deletion. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies I'm not sure of the requirements for speedy-deletion. I might vote for that. What requirement did it not meet?

David Tornheim, it's not really a matter of requirements, and it wouldn't be a vote. See WP:G11. I didn't choose that because we're already here, and because it's not the worst of them. Does that make sense? You can nominate it yourself, if you will, but an admin might well say "let the AfD ride". Drmies (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also as promotional and lacking ANY independent reliable sourcing. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2017 (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/2017 April 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The company does not inherit notability from crowdfunding marketing for a product. (Nor do I think that product is itself notable at this time.) The article indicates that Camping Solutions Ltd was a former name and though some coverage can be seen involving that name, it appears to be single-event tangential coverage which does not demonstrate encyclopaedic notability for the firm. AllyD (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Drmies; if anyone had declining this as WP:G11 on their conscience, I would feel for them. Completely WP:PROMO and WP:YELLOW. A WP:BEFORE gives the grand total of two pieces of 'coverage'- Treehugger, anyone?! :) Nuke from orbit. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant reliable coverage.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'm not convinced that leaving this up for another week will lead to any discernible consensus. Kurykh (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Broch[edit]

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

From the talk page, by K.e.coffman: "No de.wiki article. The subject did not hold a significant command. Successful completion of missions is not part of SOLDIER. Please also see a note at MilHist Talk Archives for background behind the redirect. In summary, per the outcome of the discussion at Notability:People on notability of Knight's Cross recipients: permalink, certain recipients were deemed non notable and WP:SOLDIER has been modified accordingly: diff. The articles of these recipients are being redirected to alphabetical lists." Aggressively restored by a user with 20 edits. Speedy declined. Ymblanter (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Strong Keep - Not due to Knight's Cross (which is debatable in significance - not going there), but due to his status as a Flying ace with 81 claimed kills. As you can see in List of World War II flying aces - flyers with a much smaller kill count have articles - with the notability being their kill count and nothing else. Being an aerial ace (with a significant count for a particular conflict - 5 would be borderline for WWII, but would confer significance in any other conflict - 81 is clearly significant for WWII - only German pilots (+1 Finnish) acheived this high a count (to be fair the Luftwaffe flew pilots until they died - not retiring them to command or training)). Icewhiz (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Several google-books hits (In addition to the ones in the article itself) - [10]. To put 81 kills in perspective - a Aviation regiment (Soviet Union) had around 60 fighters - this is a significant achievement in terms of material and personnel damage (destroying a regiment), meeting SOLDIER(4) - "Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign".Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect -- Successful completion of missions (X enemy planes shot down, Y "tank kills" etc) is not part of WP:SOLDIER. Germany had over 100 pilots who claimed more than 100 aircraft shot down, so the achievement of the subject of the article is not remarkable. Overall, German pilots of WWII claimed 70,000 Allied aircraft destroyed. The claim numbers for individual pilots are not significant in the grand scheme of things, as the Allies were producing aircraft and training new pilots at a much higher rate than the Germans could destroy them.

In any case, if the claim is that being an ace = "Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign", then it should be easy to demonstrate the coverage of this event. What I see are passing mentions.

Separately, the absence of a de.wiki article is strongly suggestive of a lack of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you delete german fighter pilots with less than 100 kills, you will have to delete every allied pilot, who did not receive top award honors, as well as every ace from every other war... and there are several. I actually agree with the deletion of many knight cross reciepents, but you took too broad an axe here disregarding notability on other grounds while incidentally leaving in less significant soldiers, including aces, which didn't recieve the knight cross. There are several books and articles on fighter acss leading to sigcov, and the military impact here is beyond just "Doing a job". An ace who shot down more than 80 aircraft took out more than a regiment, single handedly. In modern dollar terms, on the current 100 miliion dollar fighter jets, this is 8 billion dollars in just material damage, disregarding the effect in the air war.Icewhiz (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So far, these have been arguments along the lines of it's important & other stuff exists, which are generally discounted in deletion discussion. If the subject of this AfD has indeed "played an important part in a major battle or campaign", then this should be easy to demonstrate via significant coverage in reliable sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So far the argument for delete has been based on him being on a knight's cross list - to which you took an axe (and I agree in part to your action - but you've cut off some articles that are notable besides the knight cross!). He is on Japanese and Portoguese wikis. The article is supported by a non-short biblography - not all of which I have available, and I assume you don't as well. A quick google-books search shows some hits, e.g. - [11] (and his autographs do sell on ebay - so someone is paying), [12], [13], [14] - and several others. As you should know - not everything is searchable online easily - some of biblo in the article is not easy to acquire. Beyond SIGCOV - which may exist (as per google-hits, and amount of google images, memorabilia sold with his name), he simply meets SOLDIER(4) - "Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign". He is on - [15] - with a high count, and has destroyed a regiment equivalent number of aircraft. A soldier that is responsible for the destruction of a regiment of opposition forces clearly meets SOLDIER(4).Icewhiz (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of these offer significant coverage, and the argument that there's memorabilia sold with his name is not relevant to the discussion. My contention is that significant RS coverage on the subject does not exists. The matter of Knight's Cross winners and Luftwaffe fighter pilots is a matter of some discussion on de.wiki, where the community has arrived at consensus that indeed such coverage does not exist.

To quite from the Featured List nomination discussion re a list of Luftwaffe fighter pilots: "The author is not to be criticized for the fact that no scientific literature has been used, because there are none. Serious military historians are concerned with other things." (Dass keine wissenschaftliche Literatur verwendet wurde, ist dem Autor nicht vorzuwerfen, denn es gibt keine...) Etc. The nomination was quick failed:link. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are misquoting the German, as the discussion you are quoting from is for an expansion of the list of aircraft personnel to all knight-cross recipients - to 568 entries (which I agree would be excessive). Hugo Broch is on the un-expanded existing lists - [[16]], and is one of the very few without a full entry - which might be an oversight. Regarding significant contributions of individual soldiers - I agree indeed that this isn't usually "serious" military history. However - it is popular information that interests the general public - as is evedinced by books such as - [17] [18] [19]. 81 aircraft kills - definitely meets SOLDIER(4). Icewhiz (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are passing mentions (the first one being a line on a list), and are insufficient to build an NPOV biography of the subject. What we have here is WP:BIO1E situation -- only notable for the award of the Knight's Cross, and the community does not consider the latter to be a sufficient presumption of notability. The argument that an "ace" status makes someone notable by default in not included in the MilHist project's own guidance. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gone through the entire bibol in the article - and I assume you haven't either - as it isn't online AFAIK. Regarding "ace" criteria - it doesn't need to be set out explicitly - as SOLDIER(4) already covers it. 81 aircraft kills - should be a no-brainer for notability. As you can see in listings here - List of Korean War flying aces, List of Vietnam War flying aces, as well as the existence of many articles in List of World War II flying aces with much smaller counts (and not ace of ace). It should be noted that some of the US WWII aces - were flying in conditions of complete or almost-complete air superiority - which led to easy kills - both over Europe, and vs. Japan - particularly from 1944 onwards. In the air war vs. Japan whereas early in the war the Japanese were arguably on-par technically (better maneuverability, but less armor and often speed/dive-climb) , towards the late war they were quite inferior technically (dominated in all aspects). Contrast Hugo Broch with sources and notability of US aces with much lower kill counts (and nothing particularly notable beyond the kill count): Bud Anderson, Charles R. Stimpson, Edward "Porky" Cragg, Eugene A. Valencia, Jr., Arthur Ray Hawkins - who are there solely because of their ace status (on around 15 kills).Icewhiz (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even less significant WWII aces: Bolesław Własnowolski, Gordon Arthur Stanley, Robert W. Aschenbrener, Richard E. Turner, Norman C. Skogstad.Icewhiz (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious retort. But in this case we are talking about fliers from the same war and notability. You even left in less notable German ww2 who did not receice the knights cross, as you chose to delete based on knight cross reception. While a knight cross might not make a soldiee notable by itself.... It does not confee non notability if notable on other grounds... In this case Soldier4 is met.Icewhiz (talk) 04:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Keeping in mind K.e.Coffman's MO (to delete German personnel), the deletion of this article serves no purpose. In fact, a good article can be made out of it as good sources exist. Further, the assertions made about the alleged inferiority to Soviet airmen has been hugely exaggerated. Training deficiencies were most pronounced in 1941, and 1942, but thereafter the gap rapidly closes. Also, the Soviets were never grossly inferior technically. Most of the war-winning generation of aircraft were entering service in June 1941. K.e.Coffman's claims that a NPOV article is not possible is entirely fictitious. Dapi89 (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have kept many articles on pilots with the bare minimum (five) of kills required to be an ace. If we delete an article on a pilot with 81 then we need to reassess all articles on aces. This requires an RfC, not just an AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair - the delete (redirect) here did follow an RfC - on knight cross recipients - [20]. K.e.coffman then took out a very big axe (I suspect based on set criteria, including German wiki inclusion), and redirected a very large number of Knight Cross recipients - largely correctly.... However - when wielding a huge axe, you sometimes (though some were spared) chop away people notable for other reasons - in this case SOLDIER(4) due to kill counts as ace. While getting a knight's cross might not make a soldier notable in and of itself - receiving one (and not being on german wiki, and not reaching high enough rank / effective rcommand) - does not make a soldier un-notable.Icewhiz (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have opened an RfC on this issue: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#RfC on the notability of flying aces. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ...GELongstreet (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Being an ace alone is enough, IMO. And "no German WP page" is a non-starter; there are dozens of U.S. hot rodders deserving of a page here who don't have one, either... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Trekphiler: would you be able to offer any sources to sustain a stand alone article, vs being on a list? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, no. (I'd add 'em if I had 'em.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then this is solely a WP:ILIKEIT argument, and should be discounted by the closer. The arguments "No, I don't have any sources" generally don't fly at AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on the lack of significant coverage by reliable, independent sources. The bibliography features four titles on KC recipients (mainly the usual directories), one article from a popular special interest magazine, and one title Luftwaffe Fighter Aces. The latter features Broch in its appendices: "Hugo Broch* JG 54. TV 81 (all EF). CD EF Jan. 43. TS 324. SR 4.00". If this isn't about the KC, but about "aces", then the coverage is meagre, to say the least. It does not make sense to compare "counts" from different conflicts and different air forces. That's simply ahistorical. I also see no reason why fighter pilots should be entitled to a bonus of notability compared to other soldiers. It seems as if the notion of the lonely chivalrous fighter, i.e. the very image of the "ace", still dominates the imagination, but imagination does not supersede WP:GNG. --Assayer (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment: first of all fighter pilots were not lonely, they fought in teams. Secondly, your claim that it is Based on the lack of significant coverage by reliable, independent sources, is false and dishonest. Dapi89 (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the literature on the "ace" does not fail to mention, the image of the lone "ace" survived long after air tactics had changed air combat into something that Eddie Rickenbacker has called "scientific murder". Why don't you just proceed to provide proof of that coverage in question instead of engaging into personal attacks?--Assayer (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who says/said the ace was a lone hunter anyway? And why should we subscribe to this view? Do we subscribe to this view? I dont think we do. Who cares what Rickenbacker says or doesnt say about air combat? War isnt murder, and all war is scientific. You're just adding a series of pointless posts. Attack? Picking appart your argument is not an attack. I will get started on this soon, as your apparent deletion attempt has been rejected. Dapi89 (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I paraphrased The Oxford Companion to Military History (2001; 2004). "The men who flew the fighters became popular figures of mythic proportions, partly because of the sheer, romantic improbability of flight, but also because they seemed to have restored a element of single combat to the anonymous slaughter of modern war. Victory in the air was thought to be a matter of personal skill, heroism, and the luck of the brave - an image that survived long after air tactics had begun to acquire the characteristics of deadly routine." I also found the Rickenbacker quote there. I could provide further quotes from other historians, but I am sure that you rather subscribe to the myth than to the views of military historiography.--Assayer (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a meaningless response to what it a very straight forward issue. They were called aces if they claimed to have destroyed five or more in aerial combat. Aces are notable. It doesn't really matter what historians say about the image of the ace or aerial combat because that isn't relevant. And this source wasn't written by aviation specialist anyway. I don't think you are familiar enough with academic literature on air power to lecture me. Resorting to to the Oxford Companion for support says as much. Out of interest, have you studied air power theory, history and practice at an academic level? Dapi89 (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar enough with the academic literature on the history of air power to know that Peter Fritzsche's account of popular aviation culture in Germany is a respected study in the cultural history of air power. Interestingly enough you basically concede that "aces" were the creation of a specific stage of air war, mainly the first two years of WW I. Afterwards solo sorties were considered to be much too dangerous and group missions were carried out. Thus "airmen" were as much the products of industrial warfare as the masses of infantrymen on the ground. After WW I "aces" did have no strategic importance for air war. To borrow a phrase by Richard Overy, they were "schoolboy heroes". So it's up to you to demonstrate that Broch was so popular an "ace" that his explorations have been significantly covered by reliable secondary sources.--Assayer (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep L3X1 (distant write) 12:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: to have achieved 81 aerial victories in combat is significant; with that said, it is concerning that the article is sorely lacking so much RS cited detail; certainly there should be information which can be found and used for coverage as to this pilot in order to provide readers with an article of substance. The lack of a German Wikipedia article is not the best indicator, as English Wikipedia has many more articles than any other one on multiple subjects. I don't write on Luftwaffe pilots (or tank commanders, for that matter), but it seems there should be coverage to be found for someone with 81 air victories'. Kierzek (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of World War II aces from Germany as lacking independent and non-inherited notability. Number of kills or ace status alone don't guarantee notability, and the only sources about this subject are mere confirmation of existence and victory number/Knight's Cross. No significant independent reliable sources in the article or above significantly about Broch instead of about large groups of contemporaries. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although WP:NEXIST could normally be presumed for someone with 81 air victories, the existence of (significant) coverage in reliable sources, beyond those already cited in the article, has been called into question. Examples of reliable sources beyond those already cited, with significant coverage of Broch, are needed in order to back up the Keep argument. (Icewhiz's Google Books search has brought up sources that only have passing mentions of Hugo Broch and his killcount, or unrelated sources) Alcherin (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note - added a RS book^[1] on his autograph to the article - he's a prolific signer (as evidenced by primary sources (not in article) - [21] [[22] [23] [24] [25] [26] - and there are hundreds more (as he appeared in very many signing events + signed per mail order).Icewhiz (talk) 08:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Collecting Historical Autographs: What to Buy, What to Pay, and How to Spot Fakes, by Ron Keurajian, ISBN 978-1476664156 pages 37,112-113

I'm failing to see prolific autograph signing as a criteria for notability. For example, we include Pete Rose on the basis of his accomplishments in his field and enormous coverage in secondary sources, not because he is the most prolific baseball autograph signer (a fact that only gains mention in passing connection to his criminal conviction). I suppose that having large numbers of autographs in circulation could be construed as an argument that the signer is popular but popularity is not notability so I don't think you are making that argument. Given the sources you found, it might be worth a mention on the Autograph page or somewhere related. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this is marginally notable - wouldn't confer notability by itself - but is an indication that some people see some notability (as they are willing to pay for the autograph) - I added half a line (11 words) mentioning this to the article - which is marginal. But the book reference is an additional RS covering the subject (a few paragraphs there).Icewhiz (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Pardon me, but I consider the statement he's a prolific signer, especially (as evidenced by primary sources) to be one of the more "credulity-stretching" arguments at AfD. I believe that such arguments should be discounted. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have one's autograph turn an item into a collectible - shows that some people (collectors) view the subject as notable beyond a random scribble by some guy on the street. This isn't a strong claim - it is a weak claim - but it does provide evidence that he's considered notable by some other people.Icewhiz (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of coverage in military / history texts; I agree that the sheer number of kills, relative to the theatre, conveys notability sufficient to pass WP:GNG and WP:MILPERSON (arguably he 'played an important role in a significant military event') . — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: -- the link that you provided only includes one source (Scutts) that mentions subject; are you sure this was the intended link? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; more than one of them (three) mentioned it. Or [27]. Many thanks! — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three: In the first he is mentioned on just one page, in the second he is only present on two lists, and in the third it's really just a passing mention. This other book by Scutts is already cited on the article, with (apparently) only enough coverage to support one sentence. By no means is this WP:SIGCOV. Although whether offline sources exist with sigcov on Broch is up for debate. Alcherin (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that changing search terms to "Hugo Broch" + Luftwaffe, brings up other books. [28]. The main problem, of course, is how incomplete gBook searches are. But where there's smoke, there's.... That is, when you get mulitipe hits, there is usually more out there on pages excluded from the search and books that don't appear. But there does seem to be enough here to keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no significant coverage by reliable, independent sources. Arguing that he's an ace, and we have articles about other aces, is a classic example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Being an ace doesn't mean the subject is notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. There's literally nothing else on this page except that he was a "prolific signer" and as K.e.coffman said, that's really stretching it. CrispyGlover (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a pair of recent news stories to article sourcing, one about Broch meeting with an American pilot, two old men revisiting a long-ago war, the other about collectors who buy items he signed, he is said to have done more memorabilia signing than the average ace. Keep as per User:Icewhiz's knowledgeable analysis above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting SOLDIER(4) in my book and User:Icewhiz's. I think the prolific autographing paints him in a negative light but that shouldn't be the reason to remove his notability. Ifnord (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ForkLift (File Manager)[edit]

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

Unsourced self-referenced advert. Cabayi (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f e minist 14:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, could be improved to meet the WP:GNG with the following references: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3] and ^[4] -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 15:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Also the reference ^[5] could be useful as it has a review (which could be used in making a reception section). -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 15:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep – Meets GNG per a source review. This stub article does not have a promotional tone at all at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A WP:BEFORE indicates quite a bit of sourcing in non-blog / fansites ([29]). — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That thing with Rich Appel[edit]

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

Non-notable radio show sourced only by self-written and affiliated websites. The show's host has also contributed pushing the article close to a G11 advert. Cabayi (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Completely non-notable; a WP:BEFORE indicates absolutely no independent, detailed coverage required to satisfy notability guidelines. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paessler Router Traffic Grapher[edit]

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

zero evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 14:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not very notable. A few hits in Google on download sites, one review. WP:CORP and WP:PRODUCT apply. Article is essentially promotional and has an identified COI editor. Brought up previously at WP:COIN. John Nagle (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Neagle, and WP:PROMO. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moti mendelowitz[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. Article totally kills WP:PROMO. Only sources available are [30], which are solely wikis and linkedin; WP:RS are non existant. Mass failure of WP:ANYBIO and WP:NARTIST all round. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, no RS found. Page was created by same user at Hebrew Wikipedia and deleted there, too. Yoninah (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I can find is a linkedin profile. Mduvekot (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG - Galatz ^Talk 12:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom + checked and couldn't find much in Hebrew on him.Icewhiz (talk) 06:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Highly promotional tone of article. Also no information available in Hebrew. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Pediaorg (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editor blocked Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Contactpage Dloh cierekim 17:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nurcahyo Haryo Tejo[edit]

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

This article was created in 2009 and does not yet have a single reference. I did a brief search and did not find anything other than mirrors of Wikipedia. S Philbrick (Talk) 13:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An unelected political candidate does not get a Wikipedia article just for the fact of being a candidate — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason besides his candidacy itself, then he must win the election, not merely run in it, to be considered notable because election per se. But this contains no sourcing, nor even any substance that suggests that a preexisting notability claim would even be possible. Bearcat (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only do I agree with the above comments, but a walk through the earliest versions of the article leaves me with the feeling that it's pretty much a hoax. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, since not everybody here is an admin who can actually see deleted revisions, the potential hoax that NewYorkActuary is talking about is that the original deleted iteration of this article was actually a copy-paste of Jeb Bush with only the name in the introduction changed — and even the current kept version started out that way too before being edited toward its current version. To be fair, the original creator might have been just trying to use Jeb as a template for how to format the article, so that fact doesn't definitively prove that the current version is still a hoax — but the sheer lack of sourceability here does mean that "it's still a hoax" isn't outside the range of possibilities. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As has been pointed out, although WP:NPOL says that politicians 'who have held... national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office are deemed notable; but, crucially, that this is also secondary to WP:GNG- it assumes that 'people who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion. Which the subject of this article does not; a WP:BEFORE search actually brings up only one source([31]), which hardly mentions him at all. Tha being the case, I am very tempted to also concur that we are being hoaxed that the name exists, but is not in the Indonesian legislature- otherwise why so little coverage? However, I also note that the article actually states that 'was a senatorial candidate'- and if only a candidate, then, per WP:POLOUTCOMES, 'candidates who ran but never were elected for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability. Eitherway, fails WP:ANYBIO and [WP:NPOL]] by miles. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Khaidi No. 150. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khaidi No. 150 (soudtrack)[edit]

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

Cannot see anything to suggest that the soundtrack is notable; refs are all about the film. TheLongTone (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's reasons --Jennica✿ / ^talk 00:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Khaidi No. 150. This is not an unreasonable redirect to have and would aid in navigation if browsers are looking for information about this soundtrack. BOVINEBOY2008 15:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Bovineboy; perfectly logical aspect of the film to search for it through. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Sanjoy Mukherji[edit]

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

Yes there are references. Mostly self-published puffery. And what looks to me like a very minor award of some kind. Non-notable snake oil salesman, TheLongTone (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I very nearly nominated this for speedy, though I decided it does (just) pass A7. But the lack of gnews and normal search hits is a very strong indicator that this does not pass WP:GNG. Triptothecottage (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are articles from the Times of India, Economic Times and Bangalore Mirror that are all used as references but none of these are about Mukherji himself- he is merely providing opinion within these lifestyle topic advice articles. Notability has not been established when judged against WP:BASIC. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BASIC. Although there are articles from reliable sources, these are not about the person in question, so can't be used to establish notability. In terms of good sources about him, there are none online or in the article. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 14:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack enough media coverage to pass the notability. Fails WP:GNG --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails GNG and this is promotional and full of WP:SPS. Jytdog (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - per A7. Jdcomix (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED; the sources- such as they are- do not directly address him as a topic, describe him in purely peripheral ways, and are in any case mostly not RS. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This largely falls under the guidelines on fringe theorists, which maybe need to be better written. If you adocate a fringe theory, we need well established sourcing on you, not just the reflections of people who accept the fringe theory, or short quotes in articles about the fringe theory.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer Star 2017 Top Leagues[edit]

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

Non-notable game with no coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Reliable video game source search returned 0 results. --The1337gamer (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Recently released Android game that fails WP:GNG. Its so new (or !notable) that I haven't been able to find it listed on the developer's website, even though it's being used as a reference. WP:PROD might've been a good bet. Fuebaey (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in independent video game sources, so this video game fails WP:NVG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per insufficiency of reliable, WP:THIRDPARTY, WP:INDEPENDENT sources; those that a WP:BEFORE search brings up are blogs and zines. Fails WP:GNG. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was has been deleted . I've speedy deleted it, and salted DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Varun Patel[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Even expunged of its bizzare claims and unsourced BLPVIOs, there is lttle in WP:RS focussed on him personally- he is mostly mentioned along with other members of the PAAS. Generally decsribed as a leader rather than 'the' leader. No indepth] or persistent coverage; fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPOL. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be ok with the article once it has some sources (reliable) but I'm not an administrator so, who am I to judge? Bunsdome (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Bunsdome, you're opinoin is as important as anyone else's :) it's the sources that dictate content, though, not administrators (please see Wp:RS and WP:ADMIN for more detail on those aspects of the ting). Cheers! — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete performed google searched, didn't find anything notable about him. Fails WP:BASIC--Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I had PRODed it after the author removed a speedy deletion template. At the time there were two YouTube references only. Now there are none. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet Flo[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC, as far as I can find. The only source that isn't a music video is a newspaper search page which doesn't have any relevant results. Triptothecottage (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per User:Triptothecottage and nominator. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, also note that wild claims of being the 'Faster Rapper in Nepal' require extra strong sourcing, which those provided are completely inadequate to do so. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jet card[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Refs are own web-site or advertising blurb for use of corporate jets. Nothing showing any notability here - reads like a corporate advertisment. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A thinly veiled ad, and though the concept might at some stage be notable, it certainly isn't now. Triptothecottage (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This concept is the private aviation equivalent to the public transport smart card. You either top-up or purchase hours in advance and every time you use the service - hiring a private jet - cash/hours are deducted from that card. It is not owned by any one company so I'm not sure what "own website" refers to. Features in Fortune, a three-part series from Forbes ([32], [33], [34]) and Business Jet Traveller are sufficient for it to pass WP:GNG. Fuebaey (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Fractional ownership of aircraft of which this appears to be a variant.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to Forbes it is a multi-billion dollar market.[35]Chulabula (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable references have been added to this article. Jet Card flights fall under FAA Part 135 regulations, unlike Fractional Ownership of Aircraft schemes which are classified as Part 91 operations according to the FAA.[36] Very big difference there. Brbkolb (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As admittedly slightly spammy in tone, but that's not a criterion for deletion and can be easily addressed; the subject appears to be notable, and likley to become even more so. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chas Lee[edit]

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

Unremarkable charity embezzler who fails WP:PERP. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while the Harvard student steals charity funds to maintain posh lifestyle angle did generate coverage, there is not enough here to keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral,Just providing data at the moment -- Lee does continue to appear in books, magazines, and newspapers as a result of his crime. See for example "Masters of Deception (https://books.google.com/books?id=2hrqvjccW5UC&lpg=PA220&ots=yCNeSv-Ex-&dq=chas%20lee%20%22jimmy%20fund%22&pg=PA220#v=onepage&q=chas%20lee%20%22jimmy%20fund%22&f=false), "The Truth About Harvard" (https://books.google.com/books?id=SVrimODXb-8C&lpg=PA144&ots=_Ef2vuItiF&dq=chas%20lee%20%22jimmy%20fund%22&pg=PA144#v=onepage&q=chas%20lee%20%22jimmy%20fund%22&f=false), and The Boston Phoenix in May 2012 (http://contests.thephoenix.com/student-survival-guide/criminals-who-went-to-harvard).Uucp (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George K. Mannickarottu[edit]

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

Non notable writer/social leader. Fails WP:GNG and is probably a vanity page. Created by a single purpose account, which probably belongs to a family member as an earlier revision even had pictures and details of family members. All the awards are non-notable as well. All references are self published (and dead links). Searching provides for a book [37] which lists this author among many others, though it reads like a directory listing, with the author's address and phone number, among other things being mentioned. Jupitus Smart 12:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like a resume, first reference is a "Error 404", fails simplest of WP standards for notability. Cllgbksr (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable author, none of which his achievements can attest any notability claims. Also article does read like a resume. Ajf773 (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's no evidence that this person passes WP:NAUTHOR. Apart from brief mentions, I couldn't find any nontrivial coverage about this person, in English or in Malayalam. — Stringy Acid (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find reliable sources.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Cotta[edit]

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

The article is completely unsourced, and does not pass WP:GNG. Additionally there is no proof of satisfying WP:ANYBIO or WP:NACADEMIC. So, I believe the article should be deleted. Kostas20142 (talk) 11:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kostas20142 (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Kostas20142 (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kostas20142 (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Italian Wikipedia article has a few decent looking references suggesting that the subject passes the GNG; I've added an obituary (in Italian) to this article. Most of his work appears to be in Italian, though there are English translations, and it seems that there was a book published in his honour in 1995, suggesting that he meets at least criteria 1 of WP:ACADEMIC ("The publication of an anniversary or memorial journal volume or a Festschrift dedicated to a particular person is usually enough to satisfy Criterion 1"). Josh Milburn (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- notable as WP:AUTHOR with multiple published books and decent library holdings: Identities. Here's a sample review:

Review: Why Violence? A Philosophical Interpretation by Sergio Cotta; Dante Germino; Giovanni Gallace. Review by: James C. Dick. Political Theory, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Aug., 1986), pp. 513-517 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/191274 Page Count: 5

Another review (Journal of Social Philosophy): link. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to pass WP:ANYBIO ([38]). — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phool singh[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. The sources are almost entirely lowgrade, such as YouTube, IMDB (and, ironically, WP itself!), or zines. The sole WP:RS- notes his role in ordering a statue, which does not satisfy WP:ANYBIO. It is possibly indicative of his notability that he has appeared in only one film, which the critics labelled a disaster. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NACTOR; completely promotional article Spiderone 11:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination and per Spiderone--Kostas20142 (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article of non notable actor. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cell Murugan[edit]

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Working but Non-notable actor. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. There are several hits, but all of the trivial sort, or simply mentioning that he is in the cast. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear WP:NACTOR failure Spiderone 11:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability guidelines. - Pmedema (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable WP:NACTOR.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gritter (software)[edit]

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

I declined this PROD (a while ago, to be honest) but cannot find substantive coverage of this, though I am admittedly ignorant of software-related topics. Vanamonde (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @SwisterTwister: as the person who prodded this. Vanamonde (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is about a plugin for jQuery which advises that "There are thousands of jQuery plug-ins available on the Web". This is one of those thousands and is not notable.
Delete would fall under A7, I suspect, as the only claim of significance- it's being widey used- is itself queried; inadequate sourcing [39]. Fails WP:GNG, WP:PRODUCT. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Little Neck–Douglaston Community Ambulance Corps[edit]

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

I honestly do not know what to do with this. I cannot find evidence of notability in reliable sources, and there seems to be a degree of promotional intent. An A7 was declined by Ritchie333 with the recommendation that this be merged, but I cannot find a reasonable target: so I would argue to delete. Vanamonde (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete entirely promotional and sourced to WP:SPS Jytdog (talk) 04:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a coatrack for political spam. Bearian (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete (preceding statement added subsequent to Afd closure to facilitate Afd script summation. Lourdes) The result was procedural close. The article was speedy deleted by Anthony Bradbury per WP:A7. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thakur of Kapurpur[edit]

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

Non notable clan; seems to be an unreferenced vanity list of a few so-called Thakurs; BLP concerns too as I have not been able to find any reliable source for any individual mentioned. Lourdes 07:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yet another unsourceable article about such a surname clan. Notability is not established. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article about Thakurs. No notability established for Thakur of Kapurpur.--Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G5 from another caste-warrior, Samrat Singh Jaunpur. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julianne Aguilar[edit]

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

Fluff piece from non-notable artist. Blackguard 06:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notable artist. Fails WP:NMUSIC, WP:Artist, WP:GNG. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, references (in search and in article) do not establish notability. Basically a puff piece.96.127.244.11 (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is too soon for a recent MFA grad to have an article when they are just at the beginning of their career. Conceivably, one could be extraordinarily successful and receive significant critical attention, but that does not seem to be the case here. Mduvekot (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication from reliable sources that the subject meets WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject lacks notability. Meatsgains (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:A7. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:ARTIST. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ángel Eduardo Viadero Odriozola[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never managed in a WP:FPL. MYS 77 ^✉ 06:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not been a football coach at a level that would make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Willows Shopping Centre[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. almost all the coverage is local and routine like incidents from the Townsville Bulletin LibStar (talk) 05:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just another small non notable run of the mill shopping mall. Ajf773 (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:MILL, WP:GNG. I once worked at "one of the largest" law firms in Poughkeepsie. Bearian (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with above. Routine shopping center. MB 01:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. obviously non-notable, no sources and self-created Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Episode353[edit]

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

Not notable. Not every Youtube series is notable. No evidence of coverage outside the walled garden of Youtube commentary. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ka'ana Boutique Resort & Spa[edit]

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

Borderline promotional. Sourcing consists of the usual brief promotional write-ups in travel sections of media for US consumers; there is no in-depth discussion of the place, its construction, its funding, etc. Awards are of the local variety--chamber of commerce, Rotary club--and do not add to notability. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete minor awards do not establish notability. No significant in depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of independent sources, any of which have not enough depth for the subject to be considered notable. Ajf773 (talk) 08:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marcello Ferrada de Noli[edit]

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

Non-notable academic. All non-self-published mentions of this retired professor of epidemiology are because of his association with SWEDHR, an organization founded by him, that comprises of 6 people with advanced degrees in different fields, and whose only output is statements supporting the views of the Russian government, which are in turn repeated by pro-Russian media outlets. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pubmed https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Ferrada-Noli%20M%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=9479680 lists a few articles that seem to be in reputable journals not related to SWEDHR.Billlion (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Ferrada de Noli has featured in a front page article in Dagens Nyheter along with other Swedish sources such as Aftonbladet, Expressen, Goteborg Posten, Metro, VK, Swedish News Agency TT, etc, etc. He is clearly notable outside pro-Russian media outlets. Guru Noel (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet. My very best wishes (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I want to expand on my AfD proposal above, to provide some context. It is clear that Professor Ferrada de Noli has some academic publications, and has written opinion pieces in newspapers related to his work. However, the volume and significance of his academic output over his career (he is now retired) do not rise to the notability standards established by WP:PROF. The only other potentially notable fact about him is the fact that he founded SWEDHR, an opinion website run by a group of six people with advanced academic degrees in very different fields that posts opinion pieces supportive of the Russian government's policy positions, and is in turn cited by pro-government Russian media (Sputnik, RT, etc) as external evidence for the rightness of Russian policy. The coverage in mainstream Swedish media focuses entirely on the confusion among Swedes at the prominence afforded in Russia to a supposedly Swedish organization that is unknown in Sweden. At the same time, SWEDHR is notable because it is founded by a supposedly notable academic, and Ferrada de Noli is notable because he founded SWEDHR, which is highly circular. If WP editors with experience in determining the notability of academics conclude that Prof. Ferrada de Noli's academic work is not sufficient for notability, then I propose that this page be deleted and any relevant information about him be folded into the SWEDHR page, which has already been rewritten to indicate that it is actually a propaganda organization.Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The "highly circular" argument above, which is presented by his author as a main reason for his AfD proposal, it is based on an utterly false premise. Namely, the article on Ferrada de Noli was created December 12, 2009 (meaning the time when WP assessed that the professor met the notability criteria), whereas SWEDHR was founded only in 2015. Ergo, the foundation of SWEDHR cannot possibly be the factor which has determined the professor's notability --already recognized in the 2009 assessments. Secondly, here emerges a serious contradiction: Just some days ago, in the discussion of the proposal for obtaining the deletion of the SWEDHR article, which user Gamesmaster G-9 supported, he declared, "The medical cites speak to the notability of Marcello Ferrada de Noli, the founder, and not to the organization (SWEDHR)". But here he argues exactly the opposite, that the very same medical cites do not speak for the notability of the professor… Hrdap (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC) --Hrdap (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KeepWP:PROF lists nine criteria for academic notability, and says, "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable". A review of the info and sources already published in the article reveals that Professor Marcello Ferrada de Noli has met at least five out of nine criteria of the WP:PROF list (1,2,4,5, and 7).
- I have looked through the academic citations in the article, and they appear to be typical of any lifelong academic. Some unremarkable events, such as the offer of a visiting professorship, are being touted as achievements, when they are really quite common. In my view, his academic achievements to not meet the standards listed out in WP:PROF. It would be great if an editor experienced in editing pages of professors could offer an opinion here. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless academic notability (which can be earned by having "any one" among the items in WP:PROF), Wikipedia also recognize notability regarding individuals that have participated in the foundation of a political party. The following data has been in the article for quite some years, and supported by three sources, two of which appear to be academic dissertations: "Marcello Ferrada de Noli was one of the founders of MIR, the Movement of the Revolutionary Left. MIR was a Chilean political party and former left-wing guerrilla organization (founded on October 12, 1965) prominent in the resistance to the Pinochet Dictatorship. Together with his old-time school friend Miguel Enríquez (died in combat 1974) and Marco A. Enríquez, Ferrada de Noli was an author of the Political-military Theses of MIR - known also as La Tesis Insurreccional - the first document of MIR approved in its foundation congress of 1965;[6][7][8] there he represented left-libertarian standpoints.

I would have no problem if the page is rewritten with a focus on his revolutionary past. As it stands now, it reads like the page of a professor and not of a radical activist.Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article seems very biased. Very small achievements, like being a visiting professor or becoming emeritus professor (which is fairly standard for retiring professors in Sweden) at a very minor university, are listed as 'academic distinctions' or 'awards'. If the article is not deleted, it should be thoroughly revised.

Delete. Based on the editing history, this is a promotional page created by an WP:SPA with a probable conflict of interest. It might be a good idea to remove all such pages (as a matter of policy) and see if anyone without COI would recreate them. My very best wishes (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This article in French newspaper Le Figaro is a perfect example of the circularity problem I described above. In the article, the journalist speaks to Swedes who do not know who Ferrada de Noli is, and then has to use this Wikipedia page as a reference (In French: "According to his extremely long Wikipedia page, the man himself has had a very eclectic career"). In fact, this Wikipedia page is used as a defense by his supporters and Russian against accusations that he and his organization function purely as Western-based mouthpieces for Russian propaganda. In the most recent piece on his blog, Ferrada de Noli has lashed out against this ongoing AfD debate, and accused the editors who have recently made edits on this page and that of SWEDHR of "massive text decimation and the introduction of deceitful, and even racist-wise edits", and having the same "agenda" as the "fake news" (note the term) published by Dagens Nyheter (actually a respectable mainstream newspaper). Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... This is worse than I thought. Note that he appears on the image in your link under banner of RT (TV network), and we all know that "his" organization, Swedish Doctors for Human Rights (a misleading title) is actively engaged in propaganda/big lie efforts. This looks to me as misuse of WP not only for promotion, but also for propaganda. Now I am fully convinced this page should be deleted. My very best wishes (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. User Hrdap who voted above (editing history) is an SPA account dedicated to promotion of Swedish Doctors for Human Rights. Based on their edits, like here, he/she probably has a conflict of interest. My very best wishes (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I could argue with exactly the same allegation: "Based on their edits like [40], users 'My very best wishes' and 'Gamesmasterg9’ probably have a conflict of interests." Political interests in this case, as I show down below. (And Gamesmasterg9 is the author of the deletion proposal here after that the deletion of the SWEDHR article failed. ‘Conflict of interests?’). Beginning with ‘notability’: a) Main notability aspect in this article is the “pioneer” character of discoveries done by the professor, as judged by a mayor medical university. E.g. While working at Harvard Medical School, he was first in the research world that established the overrepresentation of immigrants in Sweden’s suicides. This discovery brought about changes in the social policies of Sweden. And there are other research discoveries listed in the article, sourced in international scientific journals. b) Gamesmasterg9: “As it stands now, it reads like the page of a professor”, as if Ferrada de Noli was not a professor, and in this case misrepresenting his professor title. Serious libel c) Then the absurd: “Le Figaro journalist speaks to Swedes who do not know who Ferrada de Noli is”. But Le Figaro article is in French! And Le Figaro article is so inaccurate to the point of presenting the professor as “companion of Pinochet” (compagnon de route de Pinochet), whereas Ferrada de Noli was imprisoned by Pinochet after the failed military resistance by MIR (it’s all in the article, well sourced). Also is clearly referred in the article that Ferrada de Noli’s title “Professor Emeritus” is an academic distinction, not a retirement status. A diploma states “Title of Distinction in value of meritorious academic services". The political libel: d) Most of the untruthful political characterizations on SWEDHR are ‘sourced’ in one article in Dagens Nyheter (DN). But DN nowhere has written that Swedhr “only output is statements supporting the views of the Russian government. “ This is instead what DN published on that part of the interview with Professor Ferrada de Noli: (The journalist says): "The issues you raise coincide with the Russian government’s line" (the professor interrupts the journalist): "–No, now I interrupt you. We only have our own line. Whether that coincide or not with the positions of different countries, that is not our intention."[41] As seen, quite different of what Gamesmasterg9 has stated here to ground his deletion proposal. Another serious libel reads, “after the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack in Syria, SWEDHR claimed in their magazine The Indicter that the attack was staged by the Syrian volunteer civilian defense group, the White Helmets[42] . But, the article given as source is authored by an American independent researcher who has nothing to do with SWEDHR. And it gets worse, nowhere in that article is mentioned any Khan Shaykhun chemical attack. And there is an “Editors Note” that says “Mr Adam Larsson's contribution to this debate in The Indicter is an opinion article, whose content do not necessary represent neither the editorial position of The Indicter Magazine nor of SWEDHR.” Hrdap (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Regarding Wikipedia policy, in my opinion, the most flagrant infringement in those edits here and in the Swedhr page, is an absolute disrespect for the neutrality stance. If they post about a claim on the professor in DN, they should be posting what the subject has replied about that claim, and give the source [43]. The same about Le Figaro article.[44][reply]

Hrdap (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC) User Hrdap[reply]

@Hdarp, are you telling that you do not have a conflict of interest? But then why did you do this edit? Well, the subject might be notable, but the page was misused for promotion. My very best wishes (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just his involvement with MIR makes him notable, not to mention everything after MIR.Huldra (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep--if he is notable it is only for his involvement with MIR, and even that is poorly documented. Google Books has precious little to offer for someone with such an article (OK, most of it is vanispam), and of the three references that claim him as a founder of MIR, two are theses and the third is About.com. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note closing admin and to academic reviewers

Multiple edits of 27 April 2017 by same user, erased all the second sources referred to peer-review scientific journals that have published, commented or referred a series of pioneering discoveries by Ferrada Noli. The user also erased in the text and in References a published discovery of clinical significance (on psychiatric-comorbidity). See edit [45]. After that, the user claimed ‘absence of secondary sources’ capable to substantiate academic notability. Thereafter, the same user deleted the reference containing the written motivation in an academic award issued by the “Instituto Superior de Ciencias Medicas de Habana” (oldest medical university in Latin America), that reads: "For his pioneer contribution to epidemiological research." (See edit [46]. Secondary sources (international scientific journals, documents from the Swedish Parliament and the Swedish National Institute of Public Health, etc.) that appeared in the version before the arbitrary erasing, in Reference list here [47].

Google references on scientific research are not found in “Google Books”, but found in “Google Scholar” [48]. Searching “Ferrada Noli” in Google Scholar gives 645 results (retrieved 30 April 2017). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.110.198.7 (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete OK wow! This man is an incredible self-promoter. I looked up his claim of being the founder of MIR, and not a single reliable source supports this claim. In this very detailed piece for a socialist magazine, the founders of the MIR are named as Miguel Enríquez Espinoza and Luciano Cruz. Ferrada de Noli is not mentioned even once. This history of the MIR also credits Enríquez and doesn't mention Ferrada de Noli. A search of books on the Pinochet years, including this one by award-winning correspondent John Dinges and this one by Princeton history professor Jonathan Haslam reveal exactly zero mentions of Ferrada de Noli, but they all refer to Miguel Enríquez as the man behind MIR. The only external source that mentions Ferrada de Noli is this piece, which seems reliable, until you look at the bottom of the page and see this: "A Special Thanks: Marcello Ferrada-Noli is a founder of the MIR, a close friend of Miguel Enríquez and one of the few survivors of those troubled times." So, the the only sources that credit him are the ones that he himself contributed to. I don't want to engage in libel, but I am also troubled by the fact that Enríquez and most of the other leaders of the MIR did not survive the Pinochet regime, and cannot promote their roles.

It is quite possible that Ferrada de Noli was a member of MIR, but listing himself as a founder of that organization seems part of a pattern of exaggeration just like his academic credentials. It is also not the only example here on Wikipedia. In the article about the Russell Tribunal, Ferrada de Noli is listed alongside Gabriel García Márquez and historian Vladimir Dedijer as a participant in the 1974 Tribunal in Rome. However, this CIA document from the time lists all the participants. García Márquez and Dedijer both appear in the list, but once again, no mention of Ferrada de Noli. Looking at the history of that page, this edit [49] was made by User:Inkerifi, who is also the major contributor to this page, and who also inserted Ferrada de Noli's name [50] into the page on the MIR. This has entered other language Wikipedias as well, through translation [51].

I think the evidence is quite clear that Wikipedia should not be providing legitimacy to this man. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The participation of Ferrada-Noli in the foundation congress of MIR in August 1965 is well documented. The book “La Constituyente Revolucionaria – Historia de la fundación del MIR chileno” (“The Revolutionary Founding – History of the foundation of the Chilean MIR”) by Marco Álvarez, LOM Ediciones 2015, [52] mentions that participation and also reproduce quotes voiced by Ferrada-Noli during that foundation event. The quote is sourced in an interview done by author Alvarez with a Chilean politician, the lawyer Juan Saavedra (former mayor of San Miguel, in Santiago). Saavedra was also a founder of the MIR (his own book here presented by the son of Miguel Eríquez and candidate in Chile’s president election [53]

The term "founder" of MIR is being thrown around quite casually here. The article about Saavedra talks about his involvement with MIR, but apart from a mention as "fundador" (a word which also appears in the subtitle of the book written by his son), there is no mention of how he actually founded the organization. Saavedra also does not have a page either on the English or Spanish Wikipedia, which is odd, given that his supposed co-founder Miguel Enríquez has a pretty extensive page. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 05:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: Juan Saavedra was member in a later Central Central Committee of MIR. He is also mentioned as one of the founders of MIR in the book by historian Marco Alvarez, book which specific theme is the "History of the Fundation of the Chilean MIR".

The book by the French historian Eugenia Palieraki, researcher at Universtité Cergy-Pontoise [54] (translation: “The revolution yet to arrive! The Chilean MIR in the sixties”), LOM Ediciones, 2015, 482 pages, is considered the most comprehensive history of MIR. It mentions Marcello Ferrada in multiple occasions, all of these in connection with Miguel Enríquez and the developments leading to the foundation of MIR. In her book, Palieraki never mentions Ferrada Noli as a source for her mentions about him. Some theses of Palieraki (not on the foundation MIR) about the role of the University of Concepción in the universitary reform movement of the sixties, are commented in Ferrada's recent publication here: [55] which also mentions the concrete political steps in the transformation of their old organisation VRM towards the foundation of MIR.

Rebuttal: Palieraki does not develop on the "friendship between Enríquez and Ferrada", but refers Ferrada and Enríquez in the development of political events and organizations that ended in the foundation of MIR.

Again, we can agree that Ferrada was a) a friend of Enríquez, and b) politically active in leftist movements at the time. That describes a great many people, and should not merit a Wikipedia page.Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 05:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: Well documented that Ferrada was one of the founders of the Chilean MIR. That he was also a close friend with Enríquez cannot be used as argument against the facts around the foundation of MIR.

The book by Mauricio Ahumada & Pedro Naranjo “Miguel Enríquez, el proyecto revolucionario en Chile” [56] , a biography book on Miguel Enríquez, clearly stated that Ferrada was a founder of MIR, a close friend with Miguel Enríquez, and co-author of the “Political-Military Thesis” which was the first document approved in the foundation congress. Again, the source is not Ferrada Noli.

A google book search of this book shows that it does mention Ferrada - as a friend of Enríquez, and one of a large group of university classmates with whom he discussed Marxist ideas. I have no doubt that Ferrada and Enríquez were friends. This still doesn't make him a founder of MIR. Interestingly, Ferrada is mentioned alongside Máximo Jara, Claudio Sepúlveda, Rodrigo Rojas, Martín Hernández, Jorge Gutiérrez, etc. It seems unlikely that they were all "founders". The only person mentioned as a co-founder is Bautista van Schouwen, who has his own page. See also, footnote 99 in this book, which mentions that "the first political commission of the MIR included: Miguel Enríquez, Bautista van Schouwen, Edgardo Enríquez, Andrés Pascal, Nelson Gutiérrez, Robert Moreno, Arturo Vilabella and Humberto Sotomayor". All of these names, yet no Ferrada.Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 05:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: The affirmation above, "The only person mentioned as a co-founder is Bautista van Schouwen" is a plain lie. This is the French translation of the passage by author Naranjo on the foundation of MIR, day 15 Augut 1965,

"Ou cours de l'événement furent approuvés la Déclaration de Principes, le Programme, les questions d'organisation, et une Thèse Politico-Militaire, “La conquête du pouvoir par la voie insurrectionnelle” présentée par Miguel mais à son élaboration partici

pèrent aussi Marco Antonio et Edgardo Enríquez E., Bautista van Schouwen et Marcelo Ferrada. Ce document fut un pas nouveau et significatif dans les définitions théoriques d’alors en précisant au sein d’une unité le problème de la lutte armée en relation avec le parti révolutionnaire prolétarien…"

The book “El Rebelde de la Burguesia”, a biography of Miguel Enríquez by Avendaño & Palma, Ediciones CESOC, 2001 [57], also mentions Ferrada as founder of MIR and co-author of the “Political-Military Thesis” together with Miguel Enriquez and Marco Antonio Enríquez. The authors source the information in an interview done in Paris, with then history professor at Sorbonne Marco Antonio Enríquez.

Same as before - Ferrada is mentioned as one of many friends of Enríquez at university. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 05:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The user mentioning the "thanks to Ferrara-Noli" which is quoted above in this page, omits the continuation of the phrase that indicates "thanks for the picture" [58] in which Ferrada-Noi appear together with his friends Miguel Enriquez and Bautista Van Schouwen, already three years before they founded MIR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.110.198.7 (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since they were friends, it is very reasonable that they appeared in a photo together. That's not notability. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 05:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable doctor, self-promotional page. No independent sources that support notability. It's an impressive job by the page creator and primary contributor, but ultimately, it's all smoke and mirrors and a lot of circular referencing. Begone! CrispyGlover (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in addition to the series of persuasive arbuments made by Nom Gamesaster, there is an assertion that he was a notable member of the Chilean Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria. The sourcing for this claim, however, is extraordinarily weak, consisting, as it does, of an old man who fled to Sweden (where gaining political refugee status in the wake of the overthrow of Allende was extraordinarily easy - the sympathetic Swedes just took your world for it,) decades later man gives interviews about how important he was back in the day. Seriously? Chile is a literate country, it had newspapers, more to the point: reams of memoirs, articles, books, dissertations have been published about the MIR - copious sources would be available on anyone who was a significant actor on the Chilean left in the early 70s.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the main claim to notability (MIR) appears to be unsupported and the rest aren't enough for an article. Sjö (talk) 06:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. See WP:NPASR. Kurykh (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aparna Jain[edit]

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

Promotional autobiography of marginally notable person. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

) Thanks for the heads-up on AfD Robert. The profile is of an author who has written a timely book (and continues to write on gender at the workplace) on women's issues in the workplace in India. Timely for the range of sexual harassment cases being filed at the moment across corporate India. I recognise some references might be weak. Do point them out and I would try and find stronger references or edit some of the content entirely if it's not upto Wiki standards. Still researching on AfD, so guidance would be appreciated. Drashmi (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2017 (IST)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

) This author meets the criteria of creative professionals as in point 3 (The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.) under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) Drashmi (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2017 (IST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.76.103.242 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Whether this neologism is already notable enough. Therefore defaulting to keep for the moment. Sandstein 06:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recuperation (politics)[edit]

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

This doesn't seem to have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. TheDracologist (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like a Sokol hoax in a miniaturized echo chamber. Anmccaff (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but review carefully. A bit of a specialist topic, but this seems to meet the notability criteria; Google books and Google scholar searches for things like "recuperation situationist" (eg. [59], [60]) yield a number of references to this. -- The Anome (talk) 09:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! That's the miniaturized echo chamber I wrote of! Anmccaff (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are almost all primary sources. Do you have any sources showing this is well-known, widespread, and significant enough outside of a small niche to warrant its own article? TheDracologist (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (responding to the nominator's query above): Some recent usage can be found in a newspaper article (Angry police officers: trade unions accuse each other of "recuperation" Actu Cote Toulouse 21 October 2016). There is also an unlinked French Wikipedia article on Récupération politique, though unreferenced. AllyD (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The title and page need work per our editing policy but the topic is clearly notable. See the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Literary Theory, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 12:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems OR. user:Andrew Davidson's source is about the use of this term in literary studies. This article seems to make a case that this term is defined in sociology/political sciences, and I can't find anything to substantiate this.The word itself is, of course, occasionally used in scholarly works in this field, but without it being defined and used to mean "something", rather then being just, well, a word, a figure of speech, a synonym, etc... it is just not notable. My search for this suggests this word, in this context, is used just in its dictionary definition - and wiktionary:Recuperation suffices. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to find more sources such as Detournement as Pedagogical Praxis which clearly defines and explains this concept in Situationist theory. The idea that wiktionary is an adequate substitute for Wikipedia is ludicrous. Their entry has no sources and doesn't explain the concept with any context or detail. Andrew D. (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but be open to deleting later if the term drops in usage. The term is clearly notable as per Encyclopedia of Contemporary Literary Theory. And Google books and Google scholar searches for things like "recuperation situationist" (eg. [61], [62]) yield a number of references to this. But the term is obscure in usage. I can imagine the term dying out among the intelligentsia in the social sciences and liberal arts. But the social sciences and literary communities are hard to predict. For example, How Primal Scream Therapy Has Survived Five Decades of Strangeness and Controversy. Knox490 (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a simple google phrase search shows this term is in use, and since it is in no way transparent or self-explanatory an article placing it in the body of theory which originated it is entirely justified IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.53.199 (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bit of an OR essay, no? Dloh cierekim 16:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a neologism that has taken hold. http://www.phronimon.co.za/index.php/phroni/article/view/102, http://fuckyeahrecuperation.tumblr.com/. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Outline (website)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. There is nothing shown in this article or found on a Google search that is noteworthy about this web site. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep There is evidence of notability. It is covered by notable media outlets such as The Wall Street Journal, The Verge, AdWeek and Re/Code. Amin (Talk) 04:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Up and coming new project from a well-known repeat media entrepreneur. Bonomont (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep The article has been improved since this AFD was started. Its sources include the Wall Street Journal (multiple articles), AdWeek (multiple articles), Fortune, and Business Insider. I don't see how anybody could argue at this point that the subject doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MShabazz's comments. Also pretty silly to nominate an article just 37 minutes after it was created. WP:BEFORE point C2 suggests "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article." - Samuel Wiki (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Fields (progressive rock band). Kurykh (talk) 05:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fields (Fields album)[edit]

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

This article does not demonstrate the notability of the "Fields" album. The album does not appear to meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Recording. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge to Fields (progressive rock band). The band was only together long enough to record one album, so a merge there seems the obvious outcome, however much coverage there is. --Michig (talk) 09:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Winter Session of Indian Parliament[edit]

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

There is nothing special in the Winter Session of 2016 to warrant a separate page. The content itself is too general and has nothing encyclopaedic in it. ChunnuBhai (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to see how a season in a parliament is noteworthy. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 15:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The extensive media coverage of the parliamentary sessions demonstrates notability. There were two notable things about the sessions - the fierce debate about the currency demonetization, and the rancor between the different parties that erupted during the sessions. The former could go in the demonetization article, but where would the latter go? While I wouldn't do this kind of article myself, and there are no similar articles that I can find for other Parliament sessions, the info is good, and after some grammar cleanup it reads better. The amount of detail here just wouldn't work being placed into the other parliament articles. Timtempleton (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Delete or at the very least new title. The Hindustantimes article on this topic indicates that there was only a "brief spate" during the parliamentary session and the real uproar later spilled outside the time frame of the parliamentary session. So I would argue that if an article were created it would have to have a different title reflecting the uproar happened later. For example, a title of "2016 Indian monetization controversy".Knox490 (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not worthy of inclusion; legislatures worldwide have rancorous debates (indeed, arguably that's what they're for) and I don't see anything particularly conveying notability on this session. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Notnews. Not notable in any way. just another session of a national legislature. Dloh cierekim 16:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The delete arguments were grounded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, while the keep arguments were decidedly not. Kurykh (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. National Parks conservation[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

WP:NOTESSAY content fork of National park and National Park Service. Parts of this ("visiting", "intrinsic values") read like advocacy content promoting the funding of the NPS. – Train2104 (t • c) 14:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a hodgepodge of ideas about national parks. Sounds like advocacy (WP:NOTADVOCATE) or just something made up one day. Not an encyclopedia article.Glendoremus (talk) 05:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - this is an excellent summary of a substantial field in environmental anthropology and sustainability & social justice. There are numerous scholars who focus on this topic across the world. The information presented is factual. — Ametrine-Ametrine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I AGREE. The article can be improved but should be kept. This is an important history. — Moreanon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

KEEP: It was proposed earlier that this content should be added to other pages rather than stand alone. This was rejected because conservation has a very long history as do National Parks and their intersection is a crucial piece of understanding and knowledge whose history and current adaptions are important enough to warrant their own page. Rather than being a "hodgepodge" of ideas, the sub-sections on this page have been carefully selected to illustrate this topic's history and breadth. While far from complete and in need of editing, this page should remain. We would appreciate suggestions on editing and knowledge of trouble areas. Whatisthismagic (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Whatisthismagic (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

KEEP: This article has a good summery of national park history, and it contains good environmental issues with national park use such as accessibility and extraction, and sub-sections are well selected and written. Also, tone of this article is neutral. Dongchanyang (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has some problems that should be resolved through normal editing process, the subject is notable, it is discussed by secondary sources, there are enough legal and scholarly sources to justify a stand-alone article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete unencylopedic essay. I mean, really – "What does it mean for a National Park to be intrinsically good?". Laurdecl ^talk 08:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This whole article should be deleted because of that one sentence? Doesn't make sense. Dongchanyang (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that you can't vote twice. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY Looks like another part of the UC Berkley class disaster we've been dealing with lately. Seraphim System's comments are irrelevant as it's also a redundant fork of National Park Service and other topics it covers (practically in WP:A10 territory), so a redirect really isn't feasible to one article either. As a side note, the class case has been closed for now at AE, but an IP's recent comment from UC Berkley there does raise the concern for WP:MEAT issues when these class articles come up at AfD. Best to be wary of that for whoever closes this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is part of User:Train2104/Berkeley NPOV articles. Laurdecl ^talk 07:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Content fork essay. Despite the old college try to keep the thing. Not to mention the POV "parks are good" message. Dloh cierekim 16:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Braganza[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, with no strong claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable source coverage to support it. The strongest claim here is that she won a purely local music award that isn't "major" enough to constitute a pass of NMUSIC #8 -- and the referencing is parked almost entirely on primary sources, routine concert listings, and community weekly newspapers. And of the two sources here which are theoretically legitimate ones, CBC Music (#11) is to her own PR profile on CBC Music's "any artist can add some of their own music along with their own promotional EPK" section, not to any editorial content written by CBC Music's staff, and the Kingston Whig-Standard is just a straight reprint of a press release. As always, Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform on which a musician is entitled to an article just because it's possible to verify that she exists; certain specific markers of achievement that satisfy NMUSIC have to be attained, and certain specific standards of reliable sourcing have to carry them, before a Wikipedia article becomes earned. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, on the basis she is clearly more than a music wannabe singing in her bedroom and she clearly has a local profile, but there's no one thing in the article that convinces me she meets WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. I can't find any online reviews of her music either. Though she sang in front of a former US president, we don't know in what capacity.Sionk (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No delete, I have found strong notability of the musician. She recently participated in a Guinness World Record of longest concert consist of 18 day, 24 hour a day. Added this in article with citation. Lubna.Iram (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC) –strike thru comment of blocked sock.--Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being one participant in a group effort to set a Guinness record is not, in and of itself, a notability claim — because she herself is not personally the named holder of the record, and the three "sources" you cited for it are two primary sources and a blog, not reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability as elegantly set out in the nomination. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Being a big fan of music, I see she has a good notability in music world. 103.255.4.2 (talk) 08:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly though, you're a sock: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IMZahidIqbal, as was Lubna.Iram (talk · contribs) who was recently working on this article. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While exploring her name through Google News, I found she got featured in Cashbox (magazine) for her work for animal protection. For her musical performance, she got coverage in The Mississauga News and Kingston Herald.--H.Saad (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC) strike confirmed sock !vote--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Mississauga News and the Kingston Herald are both community weekly newspapers. Kingston's only GNG-eligible publication is the Kingston Whig-Standard, not the Herald, and Mississauga has no GNG-conferring media of its own separate from its status as secondary part of the Toronto media market. So they would be acceptable for supplementary sourcing of stray facts after GNG had already been satisfied by stronger sources, but they do not count for anything toward the question of whether GNG has been passed in the first place — and she wasn't "featured" in Cashbox, but merely namechecked in coverage of a music festival that she happened to play at, so that source doesn't assist passage of GNG either because it isn't about her. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any blanket prohibitions of local weekly papers. I'm not familiar with the Kingston Herald, but the Mississauga News appears to be a serious enough publication - and I've never doubted it's veracity. Is the Herald a weekly? Looks more like a digital publication to me ... Nfitz (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Local weekly papers can be used in the manner I specified in the above comment. But they are not widely distributed, and not generally archived in any place that would be accessible to us for reverification if the weblink ever dies, so they cannot be used to build the initial case for passage of WP:GNG. They can be used for supplementary verification of stray facts after stronger sources have already carried the GNG, but a person does not pass GNG if community weeklies are the best you can do for sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any requirement that references to establish GNG be available on-line - can you point to this policy? It's not relevant to my point, but why wouldn't the Mississauga News be archived and available in ProQuest's "Canadian Newsstand Torstar" along with all the other Torstar weeklies? I haven't checked for it before ... yes, it's there - February 2, 2003 to current. Nfitz (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say that the references to establish GNG had to be online? I said they had to be accessible from somewhere, not that said somewhere had to be open web. You need to try looking at my own sourcing work sometime if you think I think the latter, because I probably spend more time in ProQuest's Canadian Major Dailies than I do in my bed. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused what issue you are raising then - a publication like the Mississauga News, will always be available at the Mississauga Library. Back to 1965 is available on microfilm. Probably other places too. Nfitz (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I'm raising is that community weekly newspapers do not count toward the initial meeting of WP:GNG, but may be used only as supplementary sourcing for stray facts after the issue of passing GNG has already been settled by stronger classes of sourcing, such as daily newspapers of the major market variety. The fact that the Mississauga Public Library has copies of the publication in its own microfilm room does not, in and of itself, make the Mississauga News a special case that counts for more than other community weekly newspapers do — because (a) the Mississauga Public Library's microfilm room is only accessible to residents of Mississauga, and is not widely available to a broad range of Wikipedia users beyond Mississauga, and (b) every local library in existence almost certainly maintains a microfilm archive of its local community weekly newspaper, so that fact hardly marks the Mississauga News as somehow more special than other community weeklies that have already been deprecated as not able to carry GNG.

If the person who needs to spotcheck a deadlinked reference to the Mississauga News lives in Florida or Norway or Malaysia or even in Toronto, for example, then there's simply no possible way for them to make that happen. Which is why newspaper has to be a major market daily to actually count toward the initial question of whether the topic clears GNG in the first place — the class of newspapers where the archives are broadly accessible to a lot of users beyond one city alone, because the microfilms are carried by a lot of library systems, and/or an internationally accessible subscription database exists that users in Florida and Norway and Malaysia can access just as easily as users in Mississauga can.

And as I've said before, if community weekly newspapers could carry GNG all by themselves, we would have to start keeping articles about presidents of church bake sale committees and elementary school parent teacher associations, and the woman a mile down the road from my parents who woke up one morning to find a pig in her yard. Which is another reason why weeklies can be used for supplementary confirmation of facts after GNG has already been covered off, but not toward the initial question of whether GNG has been met: community weeklies regularly devote coverage to topics of zero relevance to an international encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to this policy? Though I'm not sure that Mississauga News is a great example for that policy - it is available archived on-line (though most Ontario community newspapers are, some in multiple places). Also, I'm not sure why you keep referring to it as a weekly. Nfitz (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Er, because it's not a daily? Bearcat (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's no more a weekly, than it is a daily. It's been at least twice-weekly as long as I remember. I thought they were tri-weekly at some point recently. But that's not my question. Where is this policy you cite? I'm not seeing this in WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 05:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen articles sourced, in part, to old news clippings, and archived material of sundry sorts by the expedient of taking a photo of the page, with a closeup enabling users to read the text, and posting it to an article's talk page. Nefitz, Certainy local bi-weeklies can be used as sources. But it is highly irregular for an topic to lack coverage in more widely recognized publications (which may include specialist publications, not just major newsmedia.) One problem is that local papers are very given to featuring topics of local notibility only, Another is that they often lack even the capacity to verify facts found in even the smaller regional dailies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: I have been operating for some while on the understanding that local newspapers (and the definition of local with smallish papers is admittedly fuzzy at the edge,) nevertheless, I have assumed that local sources count a little bit towards notability, Just a little bit. I don't think I have actually ivoted Keep where local soruces are all we have. Nevertheless, Nfitz asks a valid question: Where is it written?E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, nowhere but nowhere did I ever say that local non-daily community papers cannot be used for sourcing Wikipedia content at all — they can absolutely be used for supplementary sourcing of stray facts after GNG has already been covered off by stronger sources. But a person is not notable enough for an article if purely local community newspapers are the best sourcing that can be shown at all, and that's especially true if the person doesn't pass any of our SNGs and instead you're going for "notable because media coverage of her exists". If media coverage of her existed in The Globe and Mail, then "media coverage exists" might compel — but non-daily community papers don't build a notability case, because they routinely grant coverage to, as I mentioned above, presidents of parent teacher associations and church bake sale committees and other classes of people that are of no interest to us. And incidentally, twice-weekly papers still fall under the rubric of "weekly" papers for the purpose of determining notability, because they're still not "daily" papers. And something doesn't have to be formally spelled out in policy to be true nonetheless — you need to be familiar with the corpus of established consensus around how GNG is determined to actually apply in cases of debate, and one of the pillars of that consensus is that if community non-daily newspapers represent the best one can do for media coverage about a subject, then that isn't enough to pass GNG in and of itself. A singer gets into Wikipedia when she's getting coverage in the Toronto Star, and The Globe and Mail and The New York Times and Rolling Stone, not when she's getting coverage in a suburban pennysaver. Bearcat (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bearcat. Just as you say, the sources are not here to support this article, and I cannot imagine a situation where local sourcing would suffice. I just wanted to make sure that I had not missed a black letter rule stipulating that local sourcing can never suffice. I am sorry that I put you to the toruble of a long explanation. I must have been unclear above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New or newish editors reading this should understand that the rules of Wikipedia like real world legal systems, operate to some extend under a system of common, that is, customary law and interpretation. Even large numbers of articles in local publications do nt suffice, and that would also apply, for example, to articles in local sections of, say, the Washingotn Post, which publishes local news about Virginia, Maryland and the District. A profile or feature story in one of these local editions wouln no more have the weight to make a topic pass WP:GNG than an article in any other local newspaper.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the confirmation of lack of this guideline, BC. Of course, in this particular area, with many other significant media outlets, the complete lack of coverage in any of them might well indicate a lack of notability. But each case should be judged on their own merits. If someone had significant coverage in only the low-circulation weeklies News/North and Nunatsiaq News, I think the weight would be very different. Nfitz (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete, possibly it's just WP:TOOSOON. Local papers do count towards notability, they just don't count very much. I'm just not seeing enough coverage in major media, or enough significant achievement (prizes) to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep - she would be more familiar to many more than the hundreds, if not thousands, of contemporary academics with pages in wikipedia. --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Goldsztajn, Nfitz, Adequate WP:RD coverage of her would persuade me to change my opinion , but my searches haven't turned any up. Feel free to flag me if you find major awards, articles in major media, a role in a notable film, or similar that is not already on the page. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this is about the place already covered at Spitak. Sandstein 18:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spitak (village)[edit]

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

This just says the name of the town and its Marz. (plus infobox). Frankly you could find more info on google maps! CopernicusAD ^(u) (t) :) 17:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Weak Keep~~ If more can be found on Google Maps, why not add that? If this can be fixed, let's fix it. At the very least, let's give this article a chance to be fixed. If there's nothing noteworthy after giving it a few weeks effort, I'm fine with a delete or merge. South Nashua (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@South Nashua: No .The coordinates given in the article point to Lernantsk. Spitak is a city nearby. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Staszek Lem: Delete Looks like you're right, this article is redundant due to Spitak. Speedy close. South Nashua (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GEOLAND: "populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can remain notable, because notability encompasses their entire history."

WP:NPLACE says: "Cities and villages anywhere in the world are generally kept, regardless of size or length of existence, as long as that existence can be verified through a reliable source. This usually also applies to any other area that has a legally recognized government, such as counties, parishes and municipalities." MartinJones (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MartinJones: No. The guidelines say you still have to have reliable refs. There are none. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a sec There is a nearby town named Spitak. Is there a village near the town with the same name? Curious. Should be clarified. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:NPLACE, as cited above. bojo | talk 19:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bojo1498: There is no such place. The coordinates given in article point to Lernantsk. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No such place. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And your source for that? or is that your opinion? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- In wikipedia, it is your job to prove a thing exists, not vice versa. I explained it the article talk page why your reference is invalid. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After reading some forums around, it seems that Google Maps screwed up some times ago misplacing a label [63], and this might have been created confusion due to speedy propagation of garbage via internets. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND; the original reference had been deleted along the way but the nom didn't bother checking prior versions or just ignored the references. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and the reference is deleted again, because the person who restore it did not bother checking that it is not really a reference; it is just a name tag with no information at all. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You're being deliberately stupid. Look at [64], search the name or the GNS number and you'll find the place. Stop removing references from articles or you'll be considered a vandal as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, this is you who is deliberately refuse to recognize that the reference from geonet you keep inserting has no shred of evidence that it is related to the given article. The search you cite gives a dozen of hits of the name "Spitak", without any meaningful information to what exactly object this name is related or whether they are related to same or different objects. Please respond in the article talk page. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Spitak was entirely destroyed during the devastating 1988 earthquake, and it was subsequently rebuilt in a slightly different location.". From which the current misunderstanding arose. In any case, there is already a detailed article about this place. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current misunderstanding arises solely from non-experts relying WP:SYNTH from tiny bits of info found on internets without critical thinking. This "slightly different" and previous locations bear no relation to coordinates cited in the article, which point to a settlement which keeps existing for at least 400 years. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless evidence can be shown to verify it is different from Spitak. --NoGhost (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need some clarity on whether this place actually exists, as such...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete per WP:CSD#A10 viz Spitak Dloh cierekim 16:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandra Campoverdi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:BASIC. Being a White House aide and an unsuccessful candidate for elected office is insufficient to demonstrate notability. Kurykh (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think this individual should be in an encyclopedia from a common sense perspective (agree with Kurykh in that regard), the articles seems to me to meet the Notability standard. WP:BASIC states "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The article includes multiple news articles such as Washington Post and LA Times (reliable and intellectually independent of each other) that are about and focused on the subject (significant coverage). If it came to a vote I would vote to keep it up. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael Powerhouse: The whole point of AfD discussions is to vote, and provide reasoning. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the depth of coverage (Glamour, WaPo, LA Times) meets WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The coverage of Campoverdi is routine and related to her failed run for congress. Failed candidates get coverage all the time, but not at the level that justifies keeping articles on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This piece is routine coverage of a congressional candidate. This, this, this, this, and this are examples of significant coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All coverage that's specifically in an election campaign context falls under WP:ROUTINE, because every candidate for any political office could always show that many pieces of media coverage. For a person to be considered notable because campaign coverage in and of itself, that coverage has to blow up into something approaching the shitstorm that hit Christine O'Donnell — five pieces of "candidate once posed for cheesecake photos" coverage simply doesn't meet that standard, especially if you have to rely on People and The Huffington Post just to get to five. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot show and reliably source that she was already eligible for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before running as a candidate, then she has to win the election to get a Wikipedia article because election — and the volume of media coverage being shown is not enough to make her the rare Christine O'Donnell exception where the candidacy coverage turned into a shitstorm that made her an international household name that virtually everybody still instantly recognizes almost ten years later. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The coverage on Alejandra Campoverdi is not limited to her run for office. She is also a health care advocate, a former White House staffer, and a former media executive. Journalists have written about the resistance to her campaign based on what is perceived as sexism (her Maxim photo shoot), and the motivation for her run (BRCA2 gene). If she were notable merely for her campaign there would not be lengthy articles in the Washington Post , Glamour, Huffington Post, Cosmopolitan , and significant inclusion in an article from the New York Times Sunday Magazine Not included as refs but but could have been: Vox, People, Bust, New York Post . There is more, but I'm not going to belabor the point. This isn't routine coverage. JSFarman (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All of but one of your links are related to her failed election campaign: that is classic WP:NPOL (WP:BLP1E might also be a factor). Being a healthcare advocate, a former White House staffer, and a former media executive do not confer notability in and of themselves, not even in the aggregate. Just because the links are to significant bios about the candidacy doesn't make her notable; otherwise, candidates in many competitive races would be automatically notable simply due to the amount of coverage, which is not the case. --Kurykh (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think it's true to say this is classic NPOL: for a first round (of two) Congressional primary fielding 23 candidates (source), I'd expect to see only local coverage, and not even necessarily individual profiles of each of them. It's quite unusual for such a candidate to receive multiple in-depth profiles from national outlets. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I've added references unrelated to her campaign. Fox News (Latinas for Change: Alejandra Campoverdi's roots have helped her reinvent the media landscape) and the Arizona Daily Star (via Tuscon.com), which is bylined Washington Post (Univision, ABC seek hip Latino viewers). There are now five references which establish her notability outside of her congressional run (New York Times, HuffPo, Latino, Washington Post (via Tuscon.com) and Fox News. JSFarman (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject passes general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - she was a former Obama White House official (staff) and "a groundbreaking first-ever deputy director of Hispanic media at the White House" to quote the WaPo article linked by JSFarman above. Some of the MSM coverage about her dates back to 2010 so it's not just about her being a candidate now. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Simply being a White House staffer does not confer notability, even if it is to be the first deputy director of Hispanic media. Her main claim to notability is her candidacy for elected office, which Wikipedia has deemed to be insufficient. --Kurykh (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject was profiled in the New York Times Magazine and LatinoMagazine prior to the campaign for Congress. While those features, in and of themselves, would not meet a WP:GNG pass, with failed candidates for public office, the test for notability should include the totality of circumstance. And while for most failed candidates, the campaign coverage is routine and the community has considered individuals running in a campaign within the context of WP:BLP1E (i.e. the election contest is notable, but the individuals are notable only in the contest of the election), in this circumstance, there is a) prior coverage of the subject in national newspapers, and b) there is national news coverage of the subject as a candidate. --Enos733 (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has been repeatedly pointed out, GNG requires significant coverage over time, which she clearly meets. Alternative guidelines such as NPOL which limit notability to a one-dimentional sphere are secondary to GNG and serve very little purpose in evaluating people with multi-faceted lives. Having coverage as a model, White House staff, health advocate and media executive prior to her electoral bid is sufficient to verify that that single event is not the focal point of her notability. SusunW (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has received considerable coverage, over a span of time, for multiple facts of her life, not only her failed campaign. Clearly passes GNG. LadyofShalott 00:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- this is not merely a political candidate, but also meets GNG for a multitude of other reasons. She has extensive coverage in multiple third-party sources, clearly meets GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 07:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has received wide coverage as a White House aide.--Ipigott (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per User:Ipigott: there's been enough non-campaign coverage that she passes the threshold, in my opinion. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG met. Hmlarson (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pupaphobia[edit]

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

No reliable medical sources exist (WP:MEDRS). Tagged for quite some time. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of mentions in list of phobia books like An Introduction to Phobia [65] and Oxford Dictionary of Psychology [66]. There seems to be a page or two here [67]] and a paragraph here [68]. This took about five minutes. There could be a lot more. The article certainly needs much improvement though. MB 01:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? An Introduction to Phobia defines "rhabdophobia: fear of being severely punished or beated by rod" and "samhainophobia: fear of Halloween". When you people start thinking critically when on the internets? 23:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt as a topic putatively about actual mental health, passing mentions in pop culture are not sufficient. Pubmed search brings up nothing. Search at PsycNet (cannot save results, search page is here) brings up nothing. As the lead to List of phobias makes clear, people have been making up "fun-with-greek" names for putative specific phobias since the late 1800s. I think WP doesn't have much about how the uncanniness of puppets (as being like-but-the-same-as humans) has been used in horror (we do have Killer toy but that is not very good) but that topic is different from a specific phobia (a serious thing) regarding puppets Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to List of phobias#P. I can't see this growing far beyond a definition whilst maintaining WP:MEDRS so it should instead redirect to another page containing that definition, which is List of phobias. PriceDL (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of phobias has many other phobias that probably aren't any more common that Pupaphobia, almost all of which are blue links with their own articles, and some have far fewer references. So if this one is deleted, there are probably a bunch of other that should go too, e.g. Chiroptophobia, Decidophobia, Ergophobia, Gamophobia.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia already has an insufficient amount of articles on mental health problems as it is. Solely relying on scholistic sources seems too narrow since the taboo associated with mental illness already prevents potential patients from coming forward about their condition thus further restricting our knowledge on mental health issues.Toveswuu hed (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- New user; has no grasp pf wikipedia rules. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jytdog; even non non-med RS provide little coverage, mostly passing mentions relating to other contexts (films, of course), but with no WP:DEPTH of coverage to satisfy our notability guide. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete just another dictdef. Do we still transwiki to Wiktionary? If so, that's the place for it. Redirect to aforementioned list. Dloh cierekim 16:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter J. Flood[edit]

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

As I stated in the PROD that was challenged by an IP, Flood fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. There is no significant/substantial coverage in independent sources; the CNN profile is just basic biographical data, not an article, and the Washington Post article barely discusses Flood. —C.Fred (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources in the article are very cursory and so he lacks depth of coverage even in the articles relating to WP:NPOLITICIAN. So he doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. T Knox490 (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. there are many great Americans with impressive backgrounds serving our country. I salute them. However, very few meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOLITICIAN. The Lieutenant, regrettably, does not. Dloh cierekim 03:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in and of itself — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already eligible for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to be deemed notable because candidate per se. But this demonstrates no preexisting notability, and is not sourced to any substantive coverage about him to park a WP:GNG claim on. Bearcat (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Practically zero coverage in reliable sources. No coverage not related to his candidacy for office. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:BASIC. AusLondonder (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notiable. Unelected canidate. Coverage is non existed. Reb1981 (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

European Taekwondo Cadet Championships[edit]

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

Article doesn't appear to comply with WP:SPORTSEVENT. The one and only source that it does have doesn't even verify the content, nor does the website mention anything about such event ever being held. Could even be possible that the article is a WP:HOAX. Wes Wolf ^Talk 23:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Upon seeing [template change], and inspecting the articles added by the user, the other articles also appear to be non-notable events. European Junior Taekwondo Championships was also changed to European Taekwondo Junior Championships - yet both articles exist. Not sure if it would be worthwhile or even possible to provide advice to the creator on article creation, and the best ways around it so that they don't create more articles too soon or remarkably non-notable events. These include:

World Taekwondo Junior Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
World Taekwondo Cadet Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
European Taekwondo Junior Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
European Taekwondo Under 21 Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2016 World Taekwondo Junior Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Therefore I am also placing those into a bundled nomination. Wes Wolf ^Talk 23:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all None of these articles appear to have any significant independent coverage and as junior events they're not the highest level of competition. They exist, but no case has been made that they are notable events and just reporting results doesn't eliminate that problem. Papaursa (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Entwistle[edit]

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

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of a businessman, which is written far more like a résumé than an encyclopedia article. Of the 31 references here, 17 are dead links, 9 are primary sources that cannot support notability at all, two are YouTube videos that cannot support notability at all, and one is a routine inclusion in a business directory. There's literally just one reference here (MobileSyrup, #28) that's both live and even a maybe on the reliable source scale — and it's verifying a tangential fact about his company while completely failing to mention his name at all, so it counts in no way as coverage of him. And on substance, what we have here is a brief PR-toned bioblurb about him, followed by a bunch of bullet-pointed résumé sections — which is not what a Wikipedia article is supposed to look like even if the referencing for it were adequate. No prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be written and referenced properly, but what we have here right now is a clear candidate for the blow it up and start over treatment. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - CEO (since 2000) of S&P-TSX component with market-cap of [69] 26.5 billion dollars. As per Wikipedia:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME CEOs of fortune-500 (US) or FTSE-100 (UK) are generally deemed significant - the entry threshold to these is around 4 billion dollars market cap. Telus would be a fortune-500 company if it was US based. In addition there are around 1,000 google-news hits. The article might need to be re-written - but this is a significant business figure.Icewhiz (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nuke & repave. Reads like a promotional CV, with an endless list of minor awards, including from Telus. If the subject is indeed notable (of which I'm not yet convinced -- sourcing is pretty thin), then I'm sure a non-COI editor would come along and create an NPOV article. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definetly notable, article is not very encylcopedic. L3X1 (distant write) 02:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google shows plenty of coverage in a variety of sources. CEO of large corporation with coverage in RS to establish notability. I don't really find the article that bad, except for the last two sections on recognition which can just be deleted. The remainder is salvageable. MB 02:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject meets GNG yet clearly the article requires extensive rebuilding. I completely understand the wish to nuke and repave, but I also think by saying it should be remade if even at the AfD we're acknowledging that it's an article that meets standards. In that case it should just be rewritten. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- could the "Keep" voters present some sources (two or three strongest one) to help evaluate notability of this subject. Stating that "sources exist" is generally not a sufficient argument at AfD. @L3X1, MB, Semmendinger, and Icewhiz: thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some. [70], [71], [72], [73], [74]. Here are some. I see coverage over at least several year in mainstream places. MB 00:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Glad to: 1, 2. quoted many times as CEO, 3, 4 mentioned as CEO, 5, and 6. L3X1 (distant write) 00:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll not he is not pushing PR on himself on the one hand, and on the other hand - there's lots of coverage of him due to routine TELUS stuff - which makes finding the non-routine more difficult. However, the following are of interest: [75] - very in-depth piece on him personally from 2005. [76] - coverage of him specifically when he retook CEO post in 2015. Rankings such as: [77] [78].Icewhiz (talk) 06:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also this one - ^[1] - which is very much in-depth on him personally + entire career (added as citation in article).Icewhiz (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Telus CEO put to a leadership test, GORDON PITTS & IAIN MARLOW, Globe And Mail, 1st April 2011 updated 23rd August 2012

Reluctant keep per sources presented. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DW Norris[edit]

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

This article fails to demonstrate the notability of DW Norris. Wikipedia's notability guideline says, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Unfortunately, this article has only one reference, of which only one of 25 sections relates to DW Norris. Thus, it has neither sources (plural) nor "significant coverage". Eddie Blick (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly significant after quick BEFORE. I added some references. There are probably much-much more (e.g. for instance - [79] mentions him several times on this rather bitty issue - but need to get to refs there) - need to hit the print archives + books for the period (1900-1950) - not as easily searchable, especially since his name comes up in each retirement/appointment piece on one of his descendants in Lennox.Icewhiz (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- this is not encyclopedically relevant content; accomplishments are not significant enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry. The link offered above is to a blog post, and is not a suitable source. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not claim it was a source. Just that the refs used to build it would be. I did some refs to the article. The guy is clearly notable, but searvhing for sources for the period is more difficult than for contemporary figures.Icewhiz (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - he is named (dw norris + lennox) in 92 books available in google-books. I'm adding some. to the article.Icewhiz (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done - sources now should meet any reasonable standard for a 1900-1950 business and publishing figure.Icewhiz (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The additional new sources provided indicate sufficient WP:DEPTH of coverage in reliable sources that the subject (perhaps narrowly) meets our notability guidelines. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Why we list for deletion articles about people who lived before digital age is beyond me. That so much is available about this person astounds me. Dloh cierekim 16:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:HEYMANN] performed by User:Icewhiz puts solid sourcing on page for this notable early-20th century businessman. Shout out to User:Dlohcierekim, we should make a Dlohcierekim rule; no AfDs to be proposed on pre-1990 topics unless proposing editor can demonstrate the ability to locate the index in a hard-copy book.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not all of the sources are reliable, but enough of them are to establish notability, in my humble opinion. Seems like a significant figure to me. CrispyGlover (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Olita[edit]

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

Fails WP:FILMMAKER. Brand new filmmaker. Barely done any work. Some shorts. In a single series, 8 episodes in 2011. I think this is possibly the second article that has been created for him. scope_creep (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not enough reliable independent sources to justify notability per WP:GNG but his work is significant enough to be covered in highly esteemed magazines/journals that shows potential. Tzsagan (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

122.173.32.200 (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC) Ivan Olita is an Italian film director who has been named in top most newspapers and magazine such as NOWNESS, V Magazine, Vogue.it, LadyBlitz, MarieClaire and many more. His short film "Modern Muxes: An Entrancing Look at an Ancient Third Gender" has been featured in National Geographic.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Pediaorg (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editor blocked Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Contactpage Dloh cierekim 17:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tzsagan; many of the sources are either unreliable (YouTube) or primary, but there's enough breadth of coverage in reliable secondary sources to persuade me that the subect passes WP:ANYBIO. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Coverage is not that broad and deep, but he is fairly new to filmmaking. I was wondering why some ref's have access dates years earlier than the article's creation. Dloh cierekim 12:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khallet-el-Khazen[edit]

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

Has been unsourced, as well as tagged as so since 2015. A search for notability turned up nothing. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 07:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Google Maps shows a "Khallet Khazen" here, very close to the coordinates provided by NGA GEOnet Names Server (deep link to search results not possible) for what they officially call "Mazraat Khallet Khâzene", with "Mazra‘at Khallat Khāzin" offered as a variant. Can't determine if it is officially recognized such as is required to pass WP:GEOLAND but perhaps this can aid in searching. Antepenultimate (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding this rather sparse offering (in French) from what appears to be some sort of NGO focused on local Lebanese development: Mazraat Khallet Khazen. Also according to OpenStreetMap (unreliable source) the place's name in Arabic may be مزرعة خلة خازن . Antepenultimate (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still nothing that suggest any sort of notability. How would it be determined that the location passes WP:GEOLAND? Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 06:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, some sort of indication that the location has legal recognition from the parent government, in this case Lebanon. Normally in these discussions this comes in the form of official census results (unless the location is defined only for the purpose of a census, such as a census tract), evidence of location-specific elected or appointed officials, or receiving some sort of official government identifier (such as a postal code specific to the location). This is an intentionally low bar that is set by WP:GEOLAND, which serves to combat the sort of systemic bias that would result from accepting English-language Google results as if they were a thorough evaluation of notability for foreign locations; evidence of official recognition is a pretty good proxy that additional sources exist, although they may be offline and/or in unfamiliar languages. Areas without evidence of legal recognition (such as neighborhoods or unofficial regions) are evaluated via regular WP:GNG. There is usually room for debate in any case, depending on the specifics of the location. Antepenultimate (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I'm understanding correctly, articles pass WP:GEOLAND based on the fact that they are recognized to be owned by a parent government, it is undetermined that this area is recognized by the parent government in question (Lebanon), and no sort of notability can be established? Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 07:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially yes, hence why I've only left a "comment" and not a !vote at this time. I personally would not consider the matter fully researched until someone who is capable of reading and searching in Arabic script has attempted to locate details (others may not share this level of caution). I have found some government resources that look promising, but the detailed documents are all in Arabic. Antepenultimate (talk) 10:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The omonimous village has a stub article in Arabic WP. This short page in English is about the forest. Local biodiversity and ecological issues are mentioned in this article. Most notable feature appears to be this. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

84.73, none of those sources are considered reliable sources. Especially not flickr. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 06:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GEOLAND as a populated and governmentally-protected area [80]). — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wot fortuna said. Dloh cierekim 15:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps notable, but still unsourced in the actual article, making it fail WP:V beacuse the reader can't verify the content based on references provided in the article. Sandstein 10:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
tentative Delete as per Sandstein. Unless somebody can improve it significantly. The source linked to by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi is a start, but we need a little more than that as validation, at least a second reliable source. And article needs cleanup. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This book appears to mention it, seems notable enough to pass WP:GEOLAND with the nature reserve there. Obviously needs work but no reason to delete just because no one's done any. CrispyGlover (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Hot Rod Magazine[edit]

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

I'm very reluctant to nominate this article for deletion considering the magazine's age (it celebrates its 50th anniversary this year!). But despite an extensive search, I just couldn't find enough significant coverage in reliable sources for the magazine; at best, what I found were passing mentions, or coverage by them rather than about them. It's possible that offline coverage exists, so if someone finds offline coverage, ping me. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. The 50th anniversary will probably generate enough coverage to make it clear whether it's notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources means this fails WP:CORP. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rehlat[edit]

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

G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion of a company Wikibaji (talk) 06:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep : An article is considered promotional and advertising when it's not verifiable. This article is verifiable with significant media coverage. It clearly passes Wikipedia Notability guidelines and GNG. Hence, Keep. Sajid S. Shaikh (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sajid S. Shaikh: Not the case I'm afraid; WP:PROMO is not dependent on WP:V. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- plenty of good sources. coverage seems extensive. the article is ok. Overall it covers WP:COVERAGE. 2405:204:85:3914:3108:c98b:8ab2:868 (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG, WP:COMPANY as received significant coverage in mainstream media houses from UAE including Saudi Gazette, Trade Arabia and Gulf Daily News. Sources are WP:Reliable and WP:Verifiable --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find the refs to indicate significant independent coverage. Most are minor mentions, press releases, primary, etc. MB 03:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The company has been serving four countries globally (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Egypt) and holds assets of $1.8 billion. It has received deep coverages from Gulf Daily News, Trade Arabia, Nuwait, Travel Daily News, Travel Trade Weekly, Travel Daily News and Saudi Gazette. Passes GNG.2405:204:208C:A10:7777:B922:99E0:5DB6 (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO. The sources fails to indicate WP:DEPTH of coverage outside of the industry. Most of these sources are press releases (spam), trade journals (not WP:INDEPENDENT), with the remainder being passing mentions, all in all insufficient to pass WP:NCORP. This article is of interest only to the company's image, shareholders, and customers (and we are most certainly WP:NOTYELLOW). — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per shallow coverage, press releases and promo. Dloh cierekim 15:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE - no sources found at this time, therefore we cannot keep the article because we cannot demonstrate notability. No prejudice against recreation if sources are located - please advise on my Talk page and I will review them then undelete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Layah Jane[edit]

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

W:BLP, with a modest but noticeable advertorial tinge to it, of a musician who has potentially valid notability claims per WP:NMUSIC but isn't reliably sourcing them. She has apparently had some festival bookings beyond just locally, she's released multiple albums (albeit on a label whose importance for the purposes of NMUSIC #5 is uncertain at best), and she's placed songs in TV shows -- so an article would be includable if it were referenced properly, but this as written is referenced entirely to primary sources except for a single article in her local newspaper which verifies none of those things, but rather exists only in a context that passes no NMUSIC criteria. And on a Google News search, literally the only new source I can find is a glancing namecheck of her existence in an article about a venue she played in 2011. As always, Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform on which a musician is entitled to an article just because she exists, but nothing here is enough. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am the author of the page and I am not related to he artist in any way commercially or looking for publicity. In a platform that includes every single fictional pokemon character, what would suffice to include a Canadian Artist with six records? How can we clean the article so it does not look like a commercial? M cyclops (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Show some evidence that she actually meets an WP:NMUSIC criterion, and reference it to reliable source coverage in media. We require considerably more than just "she exists and here's her own website to prove it". Releasing six albums isn't an automatic notability freebie either — a person can release 100 albums and still not get a Wikipedia article for it, if sufficient reliable source coverage in media about them is lacking.

And, for the record, it's also not unreasonable that our standards for the notability of living people have to be stricter than our standards for the notability of game-related content — Layah Jane has a reputation that can be damaged if we get stuff wrong or if somebody edits the article to attack her or to invade her personal privacy by posting gossip about her private life or her address and phone number, while Pikachu does not. So the notability or non-notability of musicians is not comparable to the notability or non-notability of Pokemon — we have to be much stricter about the quality of sources used to support an article about a living person than we are about the quality of sources used to support an article about a cartoon character, because the living person can be harmed if we're not careful enough. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep' but clean it up, add more sources and tone down the PR. There appears to be enough coverage out there, it just needs to be added. Montanabw^(talk) 08:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More coverage out there where, exactly? On a Google search I'm getting a single glancing namecheck of her existence in an article about a venue she played six years ago, and nothing but primary sources otherwise. If there's valid reliable source coverage about her out there, then kindly show the evidence — because I sure as hell ain't finding any. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Valpuri Urpiainen[edit]

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

Non-notable biographical subject. PepperBeast (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subject requested specifically at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History/Requested articles. 76.98.184.25 (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's an article about her in the Finnish wiki, so she is notable.2600:1002:B008:D1B1:B562:AE0C:4E32:E056 (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are more sources available for those who read Finnish.173.59.126.44 (talk) 13:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Inclusion in the Finnish Wikipedia is irrelevant, but the editors of the National Biography of Finland have deemed her notable enough for inclusion. How about moving this little placeholder non-article to Draft:Valpuri Urpiainen for the time being, to see if somebody is prepared to expand it beyond the current size of less than a single line? --Hegvald (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRIME. Sub-stub containing ~~BLP~~ nothing more than an ancient criminal allegation of dubious historical value. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Eggishorn: It is a useless sub-stub, which may be reason enough to delete, but the woman has presumably remained dead for the more than 300 years that have passed since she was executed in 1692 (from the Swedish and what little I can understand of the Finnish article). --Hegvald (talk) 10:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hegvald:, thank you for the correction. It is clearly not a BLP violation and I've updated my !vote to reflect. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT, unless expanded with meaningful content before closing, but with no prejudice against recreation of a better article. Inclusion in the National Biography of Finland shows that Finnish historians have seen her as a person of historical interest. --Hegvald (talk) 10:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 06:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Food insecurity in the Central Valley (California)[edit]

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

Not notable, this class has already created a page Food Justice - irrelevant information on demographics and otherwise very similar content to the other article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:43, 14 April 2017 (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/2017 April 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way too specific a region for an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Clarityfiend, I appreciate your input and I originally thought the same thing before writing this article, however we ultimately decided to create an independent article due to the reasoning user doncram provided below. The food security of the Central Valley is more unique than other regions due to the fact that it is a huge agricultural producer yet much of the population is food insecure, and the Valley also has issues of immigration and labor rights/wage problems. I hope you consider this, thank you! --Bumblebee024 (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The general topic is notable (Food security), there is no statement or evidence that its impact on this specific region is exceptional or notable. – Train2104 (t • c) 15:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for taking a look at our article and providing input. As stated below and cited by multiple research papers, the general topic is actually very notable in this particular region due to how the Central Valley is a prominent agriculture hub but much of the population working to keep that hub functioning cannot afford or access food, especially healthy food. User doncram provides a very helpful explanation below of why we decided to make this article independent, and I hope you decide to reconsider. Thank you! --Bumblebee024 (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a notable paradox that the Central Valley, which is one of the U.S.'s most prominent food-producing regions (almost all American grocery stores are supplied partly from it), is also an area of hunger. The National Public Radio story "Central Valley Disconnect: Rich Land, Poor Nutrition" is one source that expresses that. It is in fact exceptional; perhaps the irony could/should be expressed more clearly in the lede. This is where John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath's starving Joad family migrated to, from dust-bowl Oklahoma, only to find gross "food insecurity" here, too, leading to the classic's epic final scene. Frankly the article ought to refer to the Grapes of Wrath, which most editors will know about, while many editors will not otherwise make the connection that this area is in fact famous for its food insecurity. However, as it is written now already the topic meets wp:GNG, with multiple reliable sources focused on this specific situation. The existence of this article is not presaging that articles about food insecurity in every other same-area region of the U.S. will be started. Other areas do not have the food production, and they do not have the vulnerable immigrant / migrant population which derives from the region's historical employment of large seasonal agricultural labor. --do ncr am 23:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will add a see also section and link to Grapes of Wrath. After reading your explanation, I am more convinced the topic is notable, but I don't think that is made clear from the content of the article. For example, the demographics section and primary source census statistics should be better integrated into the topic. Simply citing population and poverty statistics without sourcing any discussion of how those statistics are relevant explicitly in on-topic secondary sources is borderline WP:OR. There also seem to be some possible WP:SYNTH issues.

For example the statement "For example, one of the major health implications is obesity. This is pertinent to the Central Valley because a positive correlation between obesity and corner store access as been observed by researchers." - I searched the source for Central Valley and California and neither is mentioned in the source. I don't know what other editors will say, but to me this seems like a clear WP:SYNTH violation. I think the instructor needs to make the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH requirements clear to the students, possibly with guidance from WikiEdu, because this is not an isolated example. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out, we will take a look at that specific part, and we are all trying our best to pull this article together as quickly as possible. All your comments are greatly appreciated since the editors of this article are new to Wikipedia, but we are really working to make this article quality, but of course that does not happen overnight or in any short amount of time in general. So we hope that you will bear with us as we work to make this a good article. Thank you! --Bumblebee024 (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the original nominator but after above discussion, I think the topic is notable per User talk:Doncram and the problems with WP:OR would be more properly handled through the editing process. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article needs work, but it is a notable topic. See source examples below. Additional sources are available. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Thank you very much for the resources! Ra635 (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the resources ^ I made sure to add some of the info about it into my section H.tennis (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters whose parent committed suicide[edit]

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

Unsourced, arbitrary list Mr. Anon 515 01:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See WP:LISTN and WP:LSC. Wikipedia is not a directory, and lists on Wikipedia should group together items that are routinely discussed as a group in reliable sources, not just items that happen to share some characteristics. This list is unreferenced, meaning there's no secondary sources suggesting this grouping. It seems arbitrary. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also see Wikipedia:YELLOWPAGES. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See WP:LISTN and WP:LSC. Article is also unsourced. Lack of notable sources on topic likely corresponds with lack of public interest (Appears to be a trivia page and not fit Wikipedia's purpose). Knox490 (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See WP:LISTN and WP:LSC, and per the above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:LISTN and WP:LSC (per previous comments). The list also fails WP:NOT#OR as the list is original research (as there are no WP:RS discussing the topic). -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 18:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could some be merged to Suicide in literature which is a bit short and lacking in examples? --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well we already have the List of suicides in fiction. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SNOW, or redirect to List of suicides in fiction per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Girma Hailu[edit]

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

Subject fails the WP:NSCHOLAR criteria, and as that is an exclusive guideline, I don't need to invoke the GNG. Also, those awards are in-school, they all come from Harvard, not an exterior grading org. L3X1 (distant write) 00:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Nom Com Author and main contributor indeffed for sock puppetry. relevant SPI L3X1 (distant write) 16:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citation record not enough for WP:PROF#C1 and while it's possible to be notable for excellent teaching (and it appears he really is an excellent teacher) it's very much doing it the hard way. The local awards listed are not enough; we need some broader recognition of his teaching excellence. And the coverage at [82] is too bare-bones to even make a step towards WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. A little too soon for WP:Prof#C1 but is likely to catch up in the future, plus excellence in teaching. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Collecting Historical Autographs: What to Buy, What to Pay, and How to Spot Fakes, by Ron Keurajian, ISBN 978-1476664156 pages 37,112-113

[2] ttps://www.engadget.com/2010/11/25/forklift-2-slick-file-management-fast-file-transfers/

[3] ttp://www.macworld.com/article/1156245/forklift_2.html

[4] ttps://www.macrumors.com/2012/05/22/binary-nights-puts-mac-file-transfer-app-forklift-on-sale-for-0-99/

[5] ttp://www.macworld.com/article/1058163/forklift.html

[6] ttp://download.cnet.com/ForkLift/3000-2160_4-143458.html

[7] Telus CEO put to a leadership test, GORDON PITTS & IAIN MARLOW, Globe And Mail, 1st April 2011 updated 23rd August 2012

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]