Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 April	4 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 Keep. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sangeet Paul Choudary[edit]

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

The author is not notable. There are only two events that are of note, but edits continue to cite every single article written by the author anywhere, including ones in paid sources like Forbes.

The article has historically been written as a resume, with no clarity on notability.

Lastly, all prior edits seem to have been made from one IP address based in Singapore, including the provision of a unlicensed portrait imaged that appears to have been created for the subject in a private setting. This suggests an attempt at an autobiography, which a Wikipedia policy strongly discourages. UserGlobal7 (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator has deleted substantial sourced content--the subject has been referenced and interviewed by numerous publications. Usually the concern is that WP:COI propels promotional biographies, and if that's the case here, it can be pared. But this is the first instance I've seen of an AfD begun by a WP:SPA, and one wonders what's behind the nearly total denuding of the article and this nomination. A restoration of at least some of the sourced content would be proper. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can this be speedy closed without prejudice; the nomination makes absolutely no points that are valid deletion criteria. More specifically: 'only two events' != 1BLP; 'cite every single article' suggests, at first glance, that further sources may therefore exist; while WP:NOTCV is a worthy call for deletion, the stubbing has dealt with that; where an IP is based, and the copyright status of one picture, is irrelevant. And whilst it is true that autobiographies are discouraged, we don't automatically delete them; it's what the Save changes button is for :) So, this is a malformed nom. — O Fortuna^{velut luna...} 03:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I second the speedy close recommendation & concerns of the previous commenters, especially WP:SPA. A look at Special:Contributions/UserGlobal7 reveals that the nominator appears to have a grudge against the subject, and their edits could be seen as an edit war. Why did they tear it apart just to AfD? – gwendy (talk) 23:01, 10 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. Same thing as the article deleted last month. Floquenbeam (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Ryan Wolf[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. The sources cited either mention his name, or have one sentence about his being the official DJ of the Cleveland Browns. No charted music. No awards. Unable to locate any significant secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:22, 3 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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Neal[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. His name is mentioned a few places as a songwriter: [1][2][3][4][5][6]. However, there seem to be no significant secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was looking at this one too. Most of what I found was I similar to the sources listed by the nominator, and nothing contributed to showing notability. The one source in the article is a malformed google search, and is probably intended to be the google book listing https://books.google.ca/books/about/Chicago_Soul.html?id=2kkcmS0AzMEC&redir_esc=y I don't know how reliable this source is or how much it actually says about the subject.

I did find a few sources which could be used in the article if it survives AFD (passing mention of his death in a fire in Billboard and the Chicago Tribune), but nothing to show notability. Meters (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That book source mentions a Marshall Neil in passing, and no Marshall Neal at all (as far as I can see). No other reliable sources with indepth attention for him seem to exist. Fram (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added my input to discussion because I am unfamiliar with the way this platform works and unsure where to post my replies. I am about to search for tutorials to instruct me on how to navigate through this website.

Marshall Neal's name was misspelled and his occupation was incorrectly noted on and in several newspaper articles, publications and in the book titled, "Chicago Soul." One Chicago newspaper misspelled his last name while reporting his death. During that time period, spell-checking was done manually. Unfortunately, many of his "notable" contributions are archived and cannot be easily discovered *via* an internet search ... months of in-depth research would be required. I'm unsure as to how to prove my reliability as a source. However, for verification purposes, I would like to submit the following links for consideration. I included "proof" that he indeed was a songwriter on A.C. Reeds song "Boogalo Tramp" (which is also, always misspelled online & which was recorded under USA Records) ... yet "the edit was still deleted" from A.C. Reeds page. Also, the information on Wikipedia: USA Records, is not accurate. I have first-hand knowledge of this. Paul Glass and Marshall Neal play major roles re: USA Records. If my article does not survive AFD, I would like it to be known that my only intent was to provide "new and unknown" information, and to hopefully contribute to correcting "misinformation" that is falsely being represented as facts.

Various Articles & Publications that mention Marshall Neal:

blues-sessions.com/williemabon.php

CashBox Publication PDF links:
- CB-1958-02-01.pdf
- CB-1958-10-18.pdf
- CB-1959-09-05.pdf
"Boogalo Tramp" (Nike Records: Aaron Corthen *aka* A.C. Reed, Marshall Neal & Tony Gideon)
Links RE: Boogaloo Tramp Vinyl images:
- goo.gl/images/oewb7h
- goo.gl/images/ZHjT86
Boogaloo Tramp Video links:
- youtu.be/YqZudLuGUsE
Paul Glass (Allstate Distributors Co. & USA Records) info links:
- articles.chicagotribune.com/1986-04-04/news/8601240697_1_independent-record-labels-worked
- articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-11-17/news/ct-met-cy-gold-obit-20131117_1_chicago-area-promoter-lewy
- soul-source.co.uk/soulforum/topic/288207-u-s-a-records-chicago-paul-glass/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unique freaq (talk • contribs) 21:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Unique freaq (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Brief discussion of sources and personal knowledge with pointers to WP:V, WP:RS, musical notability, and WP:COI (possibly an issue) on article creator's talk. Analysis of new links:

blues-sessions: just says "with various producers like Al Perkins or Marshall Neal"
CashBox Publication: No idea where to find these files.
Boogaloo Tramp Vinyl images: nothing but two pictures of CDs that credit "Neal"
Boogaloo Tramp Video: a posting of performances with static images. One image is again of the same CD as before. The performances are presumably copyvio.
Paul Glass articles: First one and last one make no mention of the article's subject. Second one is an invalid link.

So, nothing here. Meters (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to thank each of you for your assistance on this matter. I have added additional information and links to the article with hopes that it will be able to remain on Wikipedia. I will continue to add any info that will possibly meet at least one of the Wiki's listed criteria for Composers and Lyricists (i.e. Composer and/or Lyricist must have credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.) that I come across during my research of Marshall Neal.

Thank You, Unique Freaq Unique freaq (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT I wish to include the following link regarding meeting the criteria for notability RE: Composers and Lyricist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:COMPOSER&redirect=no

Unique freaq (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A "notable composition" would be a song or similar which is at the very least notable enough to have its own article, not any song by a notable musician. I don't see evidence that he has had writing credits on any such composition Fram (talk) 06:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the new additions to the article and I'm still not seeing anything that shows notability, just a few passing mentions of him in his work in the music industry and a few song credits. Was anything ever written about him? Meters (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you all so much! I'm researching to see if I can locate any online articles written on him that I can use as sources. The notable composition that both he and Frank Lindsey were a part of, was re-titled from: "You Can Belong To Me" -to- "I Need To Belong To Someone" - thirteen days after it's original copyrighted date - both of their names were omitted (uncredited) - leaving Curtis Mayfield as sole songwriter. It's unfortunate because, that is the one song that is notable enough to have it's own article, yet ... he and Lindsey were not credited thirteen days later. The song had already been written, recorded and released by: Jerry Butler, months prior to it being legally copyrighted. I do understand that Wikipedia has to be able to verify the content within a bio. This is my first article on Wiki (I'm a Newbie), and it is also my first subject/study - who's achievements and notability are more difficult to prove than I would have ever imagined. However, I will continue to dig and research. The following article regarding his death was discovered in Cashbox Magazine:

https://archive.org/stream/cashbox34unse_24#page/20/mode/1up

Unique freaq (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting Sentence for Clarification from Previous Comment

Incorrect: "The song had already been written, recorded and released by: Jerry Butler, months prior to it being legally copyrighted."

Correct: The song had already been written, composed & arranged by: Neal, Lindsey & Mayfield, then recorded by: Jerry Butler, and released by Butler's label - months "prior" to it being legally copyrighted.

Unique freaq (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point in continuing to link every source that happens to mention his name. The Cashbox ref simply says he was a sales rep and died after the robbery and fire. We already know this, and the source does not help demonstrate his notability. Meters (talk) 18:06, 8 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} 00:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arsh Bajwa[edit]

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

Actor with a single supporting role. Most of the references do not even mention him. Those that do are passing mentions only. The imdb.com and indianfilmhistory.com listings for him are empty aside from merely mentioning his single role. Edgeweyes (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Edgeweyes, If you check each reference in deep you definitely find Arsh Bajwa's name on each reference link. However he is a new and young actor in bollywood but he is notable enough to keep a Wikipedia page. Forbes, IMDB, Times of India, Business Standard and Filmfare are the trusted resources where his name is clearly mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibaji (talk • contribs) 05:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a WP:TOOSOON all the coverage mentioned by the above editor is not about the subject but about the role as a supporting actor in Running Shaadi.There is deferentially a notability issue and he fails WP:ACTOR too.FITINDIA (talk) 08:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 05:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 05:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's assessment. Citobun (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable WP:NACTOR.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:59, 10 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 There is consensus that standalone pages are not appropriate. Redirects can be created if users feel them to be needed, but there is not consensus here about that. Vanamonde (talk) 10:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia's 10th Senate district election, 2015[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another small cluster of minimally substanced and minimally sourced articles about election results in individual districts. As with the 2017 set listed below, we simply do not need 140 standalone articles about the individual results in each individual house and senate district in a statewide legislative election -- the correct way to handle this is a combination of one overview article about the election as a whole, combined with one base article about each electoral district where all of its election results in all of the elections appear in the same place. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So what happens if we combine all the articles into one, and then, say, Virginia's 29th Senate district election, 2015 ends up being a very long section compared to the other sections; is it then open for people to say, "You need to cut that section down in order to avoid giving it undue weight compared to our coverage of the other 2015 elections"? When there are standalone articles about subtopics (as opposed to one big article about the topic as a whole), are people freer to expand on certain subtopics as much as they want, without needing to worry about WP:UNDUE concerns? Will it be permissible to spin out sections into standalone articles if needed, down the road? N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds would that one section ever conceivably become wildly longer than any other section in the article? We make these decisions on the basis of reality, not on the basis of hypothetical spitballing. Bearcat (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not saying don't merge it. You'll notice, I put a "comment" rather than a "keep". I'm just asking what happens if one section gets way larger than the others, for example if we have, say, 30 mostly uncompetitive elections and then 10 somewhat competitive elections, of which a few are so competitive that they attract major resources and attention, justifying a larger section. That sounds like typical Virginia politics, actually. Or sometimes even if a race isn't competitive, there may be something unusual about it that draws national attention, such as a transgender journalist running against a social conservative who introduced a bill regulating transgender access to bathrooms. We can cross that bridge later, if you don't like to speculate. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Completely unnecessary. Can be covered in an article on the election, a specific results article if that gets too big and the electoral district articles. Number 5 7 08:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above; this is like giving an article for every result by constituency of the Hamburg state election. Pointless and unnecessary (low-traffic in any case), better compiled within a single article. Mélencron (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want the closing admin to construe that as supporting a merge and redirect, like what they're doing over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia's 2nd House of Delegates district election, 2017? N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely that users will require one, given the low traffic to each individual article. Mélencron (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'm merging all the content into the individual constituency articles before it gets deleted. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These are an entirely unnecessary series of articles. They are a content fork that actually makes it more confusing for readers. AusLondonder (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the individual constituency entries in {{Navbox_VAHseDist}}. There are valid search terms, and the proposed targets are unlikely to be moved.. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:51, 11 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} 00:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gülnaz Sultan[edit]

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

This page seems to be another article in the series of fictional Ottoman history which includes creating stories and information about the Ottoman royalty. It was created by a user who doesn't seem to be an expert in Ottoman history and probably contains original research as I couldn't find any information about this woman. There's no mention of her on the sources that I know including this website which lists the spouses and children of the Ottoman sultans. If a reliable source can't be found, the article should be deleted. Keivan.f^Talk 21:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be not only a(nother) fabricated article about a(nother) fictitious character, but the fact that it includes a false list of so-called references that don't even mention her (Alderson writes "none of the names of his wives seems to have been recorded" and doesn't record the names of her alledged sons eg) makes it some kind of vandalism, for which its creator should be blocked.--Phso2 (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree, the references fail verification. Seraphimsystem (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely seems to be fake, no specific references and several basic facts fail verification. Chamboz (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find evidence of notability.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as with all of these, if no sources can be found, it doesn't pass WP:V. If later sources are found, the page can possibly be recreated. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:16, 10 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} 00:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Craig MacDonald (ice hockey, born 1982)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Drastically fails the current iteration of WP:NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 02:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: ... and fails any iteration of NHOCKEY. Journeyman with an ephemeral career in the low minors, the creation of a SPA five years ago, who created two other similar articles on NN minor leaguers, both now up for deletion as well. Ravenswing 04:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with delete comments above. Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY and [{WP:GNG]]. He ended his playing career in 2012. Not that we keep articles on the expectation of possible future content, but it's unlikely he'll be famed for hockey beyond what he's already done, and what he's already done is insufficient. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with above comments Bill McKenna (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY.I couldn't find anything for WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:03, 10 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} 00:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Holmberg[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only WP:ROUTINE sources. Drastically fails the current iteration of WP:NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: ... and fails any iteration of NHOCKEY. Journeyman with an ephemeral career in the low minors, the creation of a SPA five years ago, who created two other similar articles on NN minor leaguers, both now up for deletion as well. Ravenswing 04:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY.I couldn't find anything for WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:07, 10 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 This AFD is a mess; there are any number of IP addresses and throwaway accounts coming by to make arguments that have no relation to policy. Once those have been disregarded, only a handful of comments remain, and the balance of these arguments is that there is enough coverage in reliable sources to keep this. . Vanamonde (talk) 10:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Doctors for Human Rights[edit]

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

Notability, verifiability, reliable sources Ylleman (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC) Living in Sweden and following the news and so forth, I have never heard of this organization. The creating account has only really edited this article, and responded with conspiracy theories and mudslinging when relevance was challenged on the talk page. That challenge was not by me, but by (someone who claims to be) a Swedish doctor with an interest in human rights, who had also never heard of the organization. The organization's web page contains no useful information in establishing its relevance on Wikipedia or importance in Swedish society, and of the links provided as sources for the article, only those that refer to pages on the organization's own web site seem to contain any mention of the organization; all others being articles quoting people who may or may not be members. Ylleman (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A huge red flag is the lack of a corresponding page on Swedish Wikipedia.Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lots and lots of references, but many of them don't mention SWEDHR. ~~I don't want to not-vote until I've checked the article a bit more,~~ but please don't be too impressed by the number of references. Sjö (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After checking the sources. No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The sources are almost without exception trivial coverage, self-published, non-reliable or about something other than SWEDHR. The opinion piece in DN (Sweden Risks Being a Primary Target) is perhaps the best claim towards notability, but it's far from enough. Sjö (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shorten As SWEDHR today has a proper website, it is enough with short information plus link to the website. - I had totally forgotten this organisation (consisting of only a very small group of people) as it is not visible in the society. It does not try to expand by getting more members, or making it's voice heard. It does not seem to cooperate with other HR organisations. So it does not need that much space on Wikipedia. (And yes, Ylleman, I am a Swedish doctor, still have my certificate although retired from clinical praxis. As editor in chief of the journal AllmänMedicin I have to keep updated on what's happening in the medical society.) Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 06:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search reveals that this organization is almost exclusively mentioned on known pro-Russian propaganda sites and blogs. A quick perusal of the topics on the organization's own website shows an exclusive focus on countering the mainstream narrative on issues important to the Russian government. This appears to be a disinformation site. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really relevant to the deletion discussion, is it? We do have articles on organizations that are considered to be propaganda outlets. Sjö (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is apparently nonsense that "it appears to be a disinformation site", as all the claims in the article are backed by reliable sources, so if you have anything to back up your claim with respectable, verifiable sources, you may add it to the article, otherwise it is just your "mudslinging propaganda" about some "exclusive focus on countering the mainstream narrative on issues important to the Russian government"... probably because it counters the mainstream narrative on issues unpleasant to the U.S. government, as a quick perusal of the topics on the organization's own website reveals? :-D It is perfectly legitimate to question and even counter the mainstream narrative (e.g. Amnesty International seems to do it more often than not). Antikapitalista (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact very few of the article's claims are backed by reliable sources (see below).Ylleman (talk) 06:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dabiq and Al-Bayan are propaganda outlets of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. They totally deserve to have an article on Wikipedia, since they pass the WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Your argument doesn't sound legitimate per Wikipedia's policies. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 15:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it should be rewritten accordingly. As it stands, this page is the only thing giving the organization credibility. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the organisation does have scientific / medical credibility, the article mentioning them should certainly persist. They can't possibly be any less significant or less respectable than eg. SOHR. 92.0.184.157 (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that an organization that is " frequently quoted by major Western news media, such as Voice of America, Reuters, BBC, CNN and National Public Radio" is less notable than one that has had one or two opinion pieces published? I don't think so. Sjö (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The medical cites speak to the notability of Marcello Ferrada de Noli, the founder, and not to the organization, which claims to work in the area of human rights and not medicine.Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet the requirements for notability though the article itself probably needs some work. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to be fairly notable... and in the light of the controversies exuding even from this page likely on a path to even greater notability. Given the fact that the article had been here for more than 2 years before someone suggested its deletion on the grounds of insufficient notability (and other reasons with which I will deal later), when it was apparently gaining more notability, seems like an insidious attempt at censorship. Regarding the other 2 reasons (verifiability, reliable sources), they are essentially part of a single issue... and, while there are some issues mentioned above the article... honestly, I do not understand them—they are not mentioned at all on the talk page, no further rationale for them is given in the description of the issues... and they seem to me like blown wildly out of proportions; in fact, some of them are even clearly misleading and false, such as that "the neutrality of the article is disputed", when it is not, as there is no such thing on its talk page. Indeed, about a half of the sources are primary [less than a half (and that includes the self-published ones) if the medical ones are not counted, more than a half if they are counted, but they are (mostly) really a primary source to the notes in the article referring to medical journals, which should be considered as proper secondary sources and the notes as references—but I have not reviewed the journals because I do not have them.] Still, the other half of the references is perfectly fine... and I have the impression that the article was written by a rigorous and diligent scholar who felt that every single statement needed to be backed by some reference. A greater diversity of the sources would definitely help the article, but it is certainly not fit for deletion. Antikapitalista (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion on notability does not itself make the subject notable.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the article has not been discussed for two years does not support the notion that the subject is notable. The fact that there have been no meaningful changes since late 2015, on the other hand, suggests that the organization is either not very active or not very notable since any activities it might engage in fails to generate enough coverage to make people update its Wikipedia entry.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I presented my arguments at the beginning of the discussion. I think the article fails on notability because the organization has had no impact, and on verifiability because the sources either don't mention the organization or are links to the organization itself or to private blogs run by its members. I didn't initiate a discussion on the talk page simply because that's for improving an article's quality and I think there is no improving it, it should be deleted.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your next argument concerns the issues flagged by Ceannlann gorm. That user argued for keeping but reworking the article, and in that spirit flagged multiple issues. That's not part of the deletion discussion per se; if the article survives, the issues should be addressed. But since I think it should be deleted, I won't go into that discussion.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may well have the impression that the article was written by a rigurous and diligent scholar. I have the impression it was written by someone who was trying to make the article appear to meet Wikipedia's standards by padding the reference list.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the organization is "credited with reporting on the impact of war atrocities" is supported by two notes which in turn become references to the organization's web site, and to a Twitter post, respectively.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the chairman (not the organization!) "formally presented the candidacy of whitleblowers... to the Nobel Peace Prize" is supported by a newspaper article which only states that the professor wishes to do so.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that board members "publicly demanded that the Swedish authorities provide a legal definition" of the case against Julian Assange is supported by a self-published PDF which does not mention the organization, and by an opinion piece in a newspaper which likewise does not mention the organization.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that "SWEDHR has also advocated against allegedly human-rights breaches on Swedish cardiologist-surgeoon Fikru Maru" is supported by two articles on the Swedish public service radio's web site, neither of which mentions the organization.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that "Swedish medical journal Dagens Medicin referred an open plea on the case sent by the organization" is false; the article on the Dagens Medicin site only states that the organization had issued a press release to the effect that an open letter had been sent.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the organization was mentioned in the Globe and Mail in connection with Valentina Lista is backed by the source.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the organization was mentioned "at Swedish medical journals" in connection with the Kunduz MSF hospital bombing is backed by the sources.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The organization "raised its concern about potential human rights catastrophes associated with the risk of nuclear conflicts" by publishing an opinion piece on NewsVoice, which meets the Wikipedia definition of a questionable source: "those with a poor reputation for checking the facts." The fact that the reference links to the comments section, not the article header, suggests to me that the editor is more interested in directing traffic to a web site than providing proper references to the article.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From that we're left with three mentions in reputable sources. The mentions in (reputable newspaper) Dagens Nyheter listed in the "Debate and controversies" section are all opinion pieces, in which the authors may give themselves any title they wish. DN has itself never reported on the organization in a news article. All the other references are to the organization's own site or to various blogs.Ylleman (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep After taking a look in Google news and some of the articles sources, I'm prewtty convincede that the article meets WP:NOTABILITY. It has received coverage after the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack and its respective annoncement. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 15:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This argument seems to me to fail on WP:NOTNEWS grounds. Could you please be specific in exactly what coverage this organization has received in the wake of the attack? Ylleman (talk) 04:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The organization exists - on their page there are statemens of this organization published. Obviously their position is opposition to current political regime in Europe and an alternative opinion to the mainstream in the mass media. To support the diversity of opinions the information about this organization should be presented in Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.154.75.117 (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "strong" votes. There are votes, and arguments -- some of which are weak. Existence is not sufficient for inclusion on Wikipedia, notability must be demonstrated. Ylleman (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the FAKE organization owned by Russia Today — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.109.6.184 (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A whois lookup yields that the site is registered to the chairman through one of Sweden's regular web hosting companies. Please provide a source to back up your claim, and stop vandalizing the article.Ylleman (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, this is the discussion on whether or not to delete the article. If you wish to comment on the contents outside of that discussion, please do so on the article's Talk page.Ylleman (talk) 09:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The arguments for deletion amount to : I DONT LIKE the organization nor the publications used as references. WPBut actually, the sources would otherwise be seen as sufficient, and we do follow NPOV, which does not necessarily mean Our POV. DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite follow your reasoning here. Could you please go through my list of claims above and note for each why what I argue is a non-reliable source is, in fact, a reliable one? Ylleman (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, am not arguing NPOV, I'm arguing notability. The neutrality flag was added after the article was proposed for deletion. For the record, I have no issue with the stated aims of this organization. I do have an issue with the article, since the organization has had zero impact in Sweden (or anywhere else), and thus cannot possibly meet the notability requirements for inclusion on the English-language Wikipedia. Ylleman (talk) 05:06, 11 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/redirect. Vanamonde (talk) 10:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Denver Riggleman[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a businessman, whose only substantive or reliably sourced indication of notability is a withdrawn candidacy in a gubernatorial primary. As always, if you cannot show or properly source that someone was already eligible for a Wikipedia article under some other inclusion criterion, then he does not get an article just for having been a candidate in a primary election -- a person has to win the general election to get an article if he wasn't already notable enough for an article. And campaign coverage does not in and of itself get him over WP:GNG, either, because campaign coverage always exists for all candidates for anything, so it falls under WP:ROUTINE unless it demonstrates the candidate as significantly more notable than the norm. For added bonus, there's a WP:COI issue here as the article has been directly edited by the subject himself. Bearcat (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Virginia gubernatorial election, 2017. Content should be preserved somewhere, although perhaps not in a standalone bio. The conflict-of-interest editing is not really an issue; when I saw that I speedily reverted to the pre-COI version, that that shouldn't really play a role in the AfD. Neutrality^talk 21:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little of what is in this article needs to be preserved. No claim to notability under WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect and selective merge from history, per Pater night below. Failed candidate for a nomination. Nothing more here to make him notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect a brief addition to the "businessman" description at Virginia gubernatorial election, 2017. Even failed candidates can be valid search terms for the elections they run in, as long as there is RS coverage, which there is here. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:56, 11 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} 00:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alecs Nastoiu[edit]

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

Once we strip away the puffery that suffocates this "article", we're left with a single, rather thin notability claim: namely, that the subject directed one film that won a couple of prizes at some obscure festivals (Hollywood International Film Festival, Miami Independent Film Festival - note the red links), and received a smattering of coverage in mainly dubious sources for it. On balance, that doesn't strike me as reaching the usual notability bar for film directors. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A film festival at least needs to be notable for any award at it to be notable. Awards need to be notable for winning them to add to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. List of links, reads like a CV, nothing suggests the individual meets WP:CREATIVE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Article appears to have been written by either the subject or an associate. SamsaK (talk) 09:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable WP:FILMMAKER.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:09, 10 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} 00:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest Bible Chapel Windsor[edit]

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

Non-notable church. No GNews hits for either "Harvest Bible Chapel Windsor" or "Southwood Community Church". St Anselm (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG and reads like an advertisement. --Joshualouie711^talk 01:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no conceivable legitimate claim to notability. Bearian (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Individual local churches do not get an automatic presumption of notability on Wikipedia just for existing, but there's no evidence of this one being the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG — the only citation here, until I poleaxed it just now, was an invalid WP:CIRCULAR "reference" to another Wikipedia article. And yeah, this reads like an advertisement to boot — "unapologetic preaching, unashamed adoration, unceasing prayer, and unafraid witness"? Holy WP:NPOV violation, Jehosaphat. Bearcat (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A typical NN church as far as I can see. I doubt this qualifies for speedy. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:10, 10 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. consensus, in accord with standard practice DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Elston[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)

Whether this article remains has already been discussed on the article's Talk page. Elston's main claim of any note is his (uncontested) election as deputy leader of a quite minor UK political party. He's also standing for election this May, which may be a reason for the recent flurry of editing activity. However, the independent news coverage about him mentions him only in passing and I can't see multiple examples of reliable, independent coverage which talk about him in any depth. Perhaps the best solution would be to redirect to Pirate Party UK. But effectively he's a very minor local politician in his own village, so deletion would be understandable! Sionk (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The election was contested, so I believe we can strike that from the discussion. Other points are worth discussing however. Drowz0r (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I can see where conventionally Sionk's assessments could make sense in some consideration of notability in regards to fair democratic political societies. However, it would be appropriate to correct the initial misassumption and oversight by the honorable editor, that Elston's position as deputy leader of the Pirate Party UK was uncontested, this is simply not true. Further Elston is an incumbent government official of the United Kingdom. These points would already be enough in regards to meeting notability. In Elston's talk section the honorable editor, also quite rightly replied to my comment, stating that "Wikipedia isn't to promote people from obscurity, but to write about people who are already notable." However, what may have been missed here, is that notably is not the same as fame. There is a reason why these two separate words exist. Though they can often be confused by those not attuned to the historic significance of sometimes obscure seeming facts. Hence relative obscurity or minor appearance, do not automatically equate to the subject being non-notable. I would also suggest that counter to the argument, that it is in part the place of an encyclopedia to promote obscure yet notable facts. Thus, in the given circumstances, there is no question whatsoever that Elston is indeed notable. In terms of discussing political subjects in the current media landscape, that has now proven to be biased, and often unreliable in regards to dealing with political matter, this article also exhibits more than adequate reliable sources. Especially considering that the Pirate party is most concerned by the management of information itself. Thus, while the honorable editor, has stated that he believes "multiple examples of reliable coverage do not exist," it is still implied here by the nominator, that a degree of reliable sources and coverage do exist, and if one checks more throughly, it further transpires that there are indeed multiple examples and media interviews present. These reliable sources are more than adequate for notability. Otherwise, it would appear we are setting different standards of referencing for political information, than other subjects on Wikipedia. Which is certainly counter to the vision of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales. Who himself has covered the concept of obscurity and notability, stating that there exists a "danger of snap judgments particularly of the variety I have never heard of this, therefore it can't be important," when his article Mzoli's, was initially nominated for deletion. Notability is not an on and off switch. It occurs in degrees, and Elston, while he maybe no Donald Trump, yet, certainly falls within this degree of notability. Further, what propose does it really serve, to delete information about a government office holder, who is also a deputy leader of a British political party, and a candidate in an up coming election? Why was not the article nominated for deletion prior to the candidacy? If there is any doubt whatsoever that the article maybe targeted as consequence of a candidacy, then it must be kept, as this is a most dangerous course, with potential cataclysmic ramifications in the history of the use of wikipedia in political context in regards to discrimination and censorship, as the nature of the wikipedia project now transcends traditional encyclopedias, and is often even used by journalists to determine whether to cover a topic or not. If there exists even a potential of targeting to diminish grassroots political movements in this manner, one must air on the side of caution and acknowledge notability given it is these reliable journalistic sources, we are meant to be ruled by here in the first place. Indeed Elston is notable, and this article should be kept. ${\mathfrak {StephenNightingale}}$ ^{( $Talk$ )} 00:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, Elston is not a member of the Government, he is a community councillor in rural Wales. Secondly, I did not imply there were examples in existence of in-depth, reliable secondary coverage about Elston. In fact quite the opposite, I've searched for them and can't find any. If there are substantive news articles etc. about Elston, please bring them to light. Sionk (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Once again the honorable editor is mistaken in judgement, please allow me to direct you to Wikipedia where it states that "A Councillor is a member of a local government council," indeed. Simply being from "rural Wales" or a member of local government there is not means enough for discrimination in the United Kingdom, as all of Wales whether rural or urban is an integral part of the sovereign United Kingdom on par with all others locales including Gibraltar. Thus, David Elston is indeed notable. ${\mathfrak {StephenNightingale}}$ ^{( $Talk$ )} 14:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As Sionk stated above and in the article itself, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to promote unknown politicians from obscurity. Quality over quantity has to be the consideration with regards to the sources - most a really only mentions in passing and others are simple paragraphs that don't establish any notability. The mere fact that the page already exists and the fact that it may otherwise be well written doesn't preclude it from being unsuitable for Wikipedia. Maswimelleu (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't state that? Drowz0r (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, the response was directed towards Sionk instead and I copied in the wrong name. Maswimelleu (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The honorable editor is correct that the "purpose of Wikipedia is not to promote unknown politicians from obscurity," however the purpose of wikipedia is defiantly not to target and discriminate against "unknown politicians," sabotaging their chance of further discovery, in the current political media climate, if they are indeed notable, as David Elston the deputy party leader of the Pirate Party clearly is. Unknown, or perhaps disapproved by some, does not mean that the subject is not notable. I have already mentioned that the founder of Wikipedia Jimbo Wales's edict on the "danger of snap judgments particularly of the variety I have never heard of this, therefore it can't be important,". Thus, being ignorant of a subject is absolutely an incorrect biases to begin judging notability. Clearly here it's quite obvious the subject is a member of the local government with many reliable sources for anyone who wishes to read diligently. ${\mathfrak {StephenNightingale}}$ ^{( $Talk$ )} 14:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete an "unknown polituician" is default not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The purpose of wikipedia is to inform the public about the world around them. In this way it is essential to have minority parties and their leaders on wikipedia to ensure that the public is fully informed. David Elston may not be notorious at the moment. However he still needs to be repesented to ensure that anyone looking to learn more about the PPUK is fully informed about the leadership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsykesvoyage (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely fails WP:BASIC. Has not received "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Obviously fails WP:NPOL as a micro-level community councillor. AusLondonder (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being deputy leader of a minor political party is no automatic guarantee of inclusion in Wikipedia, and neither is being a community councillor for a local municipal government — in Wales, the lowest level of government that guarantees inclusion for an officeholder is the National Assembly for Wales, not any local town or city council. And Wikipedia's role is not to help minor political parties publicize themselves and their leadership, either. If he could be properly sourced over WP:GNG, then there would be a case for inclusion, but the sourcing present here is entirely too dependent on blogs, primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in articles that aren't about him, with almost nothing that actually contributes toward a compelling GNG case. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pirate_Party_UK#Leadership, where he is mentioned as the party's deputy leader. This doesn't need it's own page, but it's a valid search term for the party itself. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:59, 11 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) 01:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MonaBar[edit]

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

Originally created as a puff piece, after culling promo all we're left with is one promotional sentence and a single link to a mention in a listicle. Searching google news gives exactly 0 hits and other searches turn up no coverage - also searched under their new name Spreever and same thing. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, on the basis of the one article that mentions it (only 3 lines) around the time of its release, it doesn't seem to have been noticed much. I can't find anything else independent and reliable online. Sionk (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:45, 3 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) 20:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Same concerns as nom. I erroneously CSD'd it but this is perhaps a better arena for its discussion. I went through a few cashback sites, expectedly quite a few had promo and coi issues, but this was the only one that was considerably below notability. The earlier incarnation of this prior to my pruning/removing of promotional content can be seen here, you can see even in that form it is still below WP:NCORP or even a generous application of WP:GNG. Rayman60 (talk) 21:29, 3 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) 01:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Townsend[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person whose only claim of notability is as a non-winning candidate in a state legislative election. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they haven't won; if you cannot demonstrate and source that she was already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of her candidacy, then she has to win the election to get an article because of the election. Of course the article will be recreated in November if she wins her seat, but nothing stated or sourced here gets her an article today. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the case is stronger for keeping this article than for keeping the Elizabeth Guzman article, because Townsend got nominated in 2015 by the Democrats, which is sort of like winning a mini-election. Combine that with the notability of the election itself, which is considered one of the stronger pickup opportunities for the Democrats in Virginia, and she's more notable than the typical state legislative candidate. From a WP:IAR standpoint, I will also say, Townsend ran in two elections, so it's helpful to consolidate all that information into one article rather than duplicate it in both Virginia's 31st House of Delegates district election, 2015 and Virginia's 31st House of Delegates district election, 2017. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A person does not get over the notability bar just for running in more than one election; at a guess, a good half of all unsuccessful candidates for office have tried more than just once. And if you think an editor whose first-ever contribution under this username was just 16 hours ago is going to somehow have the magical new insight that convinces thousands of established editors that 16 years worth of established Wikipedia practice regarding politicians has been totally wrong all that time, then I've got news for you. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless someone can show she's got a high profile in Virginia for doing something other than lose elections, albeit quite narrowly at times. Perhaps she needs to sack her publicity team! The timing of this article suggests it's in advance of her campaign later this year. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Sionk (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NPOL as an unelected candidate for office. No other claim to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 12:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong delete candidates for state legislatures are never ever notable for that alone. They need something else. The routine coverae of state legislature candidates is not enough to make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 10 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 Virginia House of Delegates election, 2017. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia's 2nd House of Delegates district election, 2017[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge all to Virginia House of Delegates election, 2017. This is a statewide election of all houses in the House of Delegates, so we do not need a separate standalone article for each individual district -- we do this in the case of individual special elections that are not part of a larger statewide or national event, and thus have no parent article that they can be discussed in, but in a statewide general election we do not create a comprehensive series of 100 separate election-in-district articles for each individual district -- we create one article about the statewide election, and include the local results in the district's base article. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge the small articles, keep the big articles (if any). I think that it's reasonable to have a separate article for each House of Delegates election in which there are at least two major party candidates, as there will tend to be enough media coverage in those cases to meet the WP:GNG. I don't think there will be space in Virginia House of Delegates election, 2017 for all the information, especially for some of the more detailed election articles. For example, where an incumbent is stepping down, there are often a number of candidates from both parties competing in the primaries, leading to a lot of coverage there, and then there will be additional stories as the election moves into the general election stage. Democrats will also be pouring a lot of resources into several Delegate races this year that they think they can flip to their side, or where they are trying to unseat a candidate they particularly dislike (as in Virginia's 13th House of Delegates district), so that too is already generating a lot of coverage in some cases. The other option would be to merge content into the main article for each district, but there's not enough space there, either, because these districts have electoral histories going back for dozens of elections. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

50 US states. Generally at least 100 districts per state house, with more than 400 house districts in a couple of the New England states. Elections every two to four years. State senates too. Add 435 federal House districts, elections every two years. Then do the same thing for Canada's 10 provincial and three territorial legislatures and its 338 seats in the House of Commons. Pace the United Kingdom (Westminster + Scotland + Wales + Northern Ireland!), Australia (federal plus six states), Ireland, Germany (federal plus states), France, Italy, India (federal plus states), Poland, New Zealand, South Africa and every other country on earth with democratic elections — resulting in several hundred thousand of these existing within one election cycle. That's not sustainable or maintainable in any way, shape or form, which is why we don't do it. Bearcat (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not totally unheard of to have separate articles about Congressional district elections, as in the case of Texas's 22nd congressional district election, 2008, which wasn't a special election. It's not the norm, but it can happen, if someone wants to add enough enough information on the topic, that it reaches a point where it needs to be spun out. At the federal level, it's theoretically totally doable to have a separate article about every contested U.S. House race, every two years. The only reason it isn't done is that not enough editors have stepped forward to put in that work of article-writing, to flesh out those sections to the point that they could stand alone as separate articles.

At the state level, it could be done as well, because the sources are probably there to support separate articles for each of the contested seats. But again, there's usually a lack of editors to actually add the content, so that's the only reason it hasn't happened yet. But it probably should happen, in those instances where there are editors available. 2,500 articles a year ( ( 100 contested elections / state ) * ( 1 election / 2 years ) * ( 50 states / union ) ) for U.S. state legislative elections isn't really that many.

In thinking about it, maybe a merger is in order for the shorter articles, but I think it should be without prejudice against spinning out some of the articles later if the sections get too big. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is too many. You forgot the part about how that number also has to be multiplied by Canada and Germany and Australia and New Zealand and South Africa and France and the United Kingdom and dozens of other countries which also have contested democratic elections at multiple layers of government. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, but the French are probably just going to add stuff about French elections to the French Wikipedia. How many species are there? 2 million to 10¹², according to global biodiversity? But Wikipedia has undertaken to write articles about all of them, if possible, to the extent enough information about them is available to give each their own article. They even created a whole wiki for it. I think the rationale is, eventually editors will get to covering all of them, because there's a finite number of species, and editors just find that kind of content really fascinating to write about. How many editor-hours will that take, though, to complete that project; and how easy will it be to maintain all those pages? It boggles the mind, but we can do it! Or, at any rate, they can do it (since I'm not getting involved in that project).

The only reason we can't aspire to have an article about every state legislative election that ever happened, is that we know that no one cares about Virginia's 1st House of Delegates district election, 1924, and chances are, no one ever will. But what if they did care! Heh. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be surprised to learn that (a) there are anglophones living in France, and (b) people who don't live in France care about French elections too. Things are not notable only in the primary language of their own home country; if a topic is notable enough to have an article on wiki-fr then it's automatically notable enough to have an article on wiki-en too. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that major French elections, like the French Presidential election, get coverage on all the Wikipedias. However, it's also common that an article that exists on, say, the French Wikipedia won't exist on the English Wikipedia, if it's of little interest in the anglosphere. And vice versa; many topics on the English Wikipedia don't exist on the French Wikipedia because, for example, hardly anyone in the French-speaking world cares about Bob Marshall. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all These are totally unnecessary and it's not reasonable under in any sense of the word to keep them. Detailed results can still be presented in Virginia House of Delegates election, 2017, or if that gets too big Results of the Virginia House of Delegates election, 2017, as well as the articles on the individual constituencies. This is how it's done elsewhere on Wikipedia. Number 5 7 21:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much about the results being detailed, as it is all the other stuff involved, like debates, fundraising, endorsements, issues, candidate background, etc., which would, with successive elections, eventually make the articles on the individual constituencies get too big. But, if it's desired to wait till if/when they actually do get too big before breaking them out, I guess it's not a major problem, since we can still have a redirect for convenient linking from other articles and templates, if needed. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another option would be to simply give a summary result of elections table with suitable links to the relevant page. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above, there's not much to add. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the conversation above. Detailed articles about specific races can always be spun out, if an editor care to develop those article. Otherwise, it makes sense to have one main article to cover the election cycle.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom and above editors. It actually makes more sense, and is easier on anyone researching the subject, to have all the information in a single article. If, at some point the article becomes too lengthy, then an article split would be warranted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per nom and above edit. Curated some of these pages when created and don't see any reason the little info each contained if/any couldn't all be consolidated in one page. Phil (talk) 04:45, 10 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) 01:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Enrique Díaz Félix[edit]

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

Subject is a right-of-center former Mexican "municipal president" (equivalent of a Mayor) Fails WP:NPOL, WP:POLOUTCOMES as a WP:GNG-failing mayor of a city that is too small to provide him intrinsic notability. There is no Spanish-wiki version, which says something about his notability. Created by a now–blocked editor. Mr. Guye (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rosarito Beach is certainly large enough that a mayor would be accepted as notable if he could be sourced over WP:GNG for it, but it is not large enough to hand him an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing in the absence of solid sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 3 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) 01:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler-351b[edit]

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

There are no citations, no publications specifically about the planet, and this article really isn't that significant. SpaceDude777 (talk) March 19, 2017, 7:20 UTC

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This discussion was not created with the proper template. I remain neutral on the nomination itself at this time. --Finngall ^talk 19:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found no significant coverage (the only portion of WP:NASTRO that appears likely to apply to exoplanets) of this planet in either technical or lay publications, but I'll reserve judgement in case someone comes up with something. For now, it is worth noting that the article says something about the star Kepler-351 and virtually nothing about the planet Kepler-351b. Lithopsian (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I stubified the article, because it is, in fact, a stub. maybe some citation and additional facts can save the article from deletion and move onto the nice article list. ProDuct0339^say_work^proj 08:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In essentially all the Kepler-nnnx planets, no further information is or will be available for a decade. Their orbital radius and period, diameter and mass in the infobox are all the information we're going to get for the immediate future. Assuming it doesn't already exist, an article with a table containing that limited set of information for all the Kepler-discovered planets might be worthwhile. But separate articles makes no sense unless for some reason extra information is available. This doesn't seem to be one of those cases. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That list would be List of exoplanets discovered using the Kepler spacecraft. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kepler-377c for a similar discussion resulting in a redirect to that list. Lithopsian (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. I notice that some of the planet articles on that list actually re-direct to system articles (e.g., Kepler-33). Those articles actually can make sense, more information about the host star can become available, more planets can be discovered, and there may be discussion about interaction between the planets in the system where an article makes sense. Tarl N. (discuss) 16:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or turn into a redirect as discussed). I still see no notability and no reason to have the article. Lithopsian (talk) 19:33, 3 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. per WP:G5 (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zebronics (India)[edit]

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

Article is sourced to product announcements and other promotional works. The article promotes a company that doesn't have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G11 - this article has been deleted & salted before under Zebronics and ZEBRONICS. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note - See related Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Infozeb Exemplo347 (talk) 17:02, 3 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) 01:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Perry (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by never playing in a high enough league or for long enough in the AHL (needed 200 games) and no awards. Yosemiter (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 05:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 05:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Journeyman minor-leaguer with an ephemeral career in the mid-minors. Ravenswing 15:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed to make enough of a splash in either the OHL or AHL to satisfy notability requirements. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 20:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY.I couldn't find anything for WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:19, 10 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) 01:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SustainablePembrokeshire[edit]

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

Article creator contested PROD. Essay-like article that has Wikipedia and primary sources as its references. Material appears promotional in some areas. On the whole, nothing in this article that couldn't be contained in the Pembrokeshire, and most of the content would be difficult to merge in a way that is acceptable within our policies. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 17:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or, if the original author wants, move to a sandbox to improve considerably. At present I've really no idea what "SustainablePembrokeshire" is - the article is essaylike and more a general ramble about sustainability (in the loosest sense of the word) and sustainable initiatives in the county. I can see numerous mentions online over a long period about Sustainable Pembrokeshire grants being handed out, but that's it. My preference at the moment would be to WP:BLOWITUP. Sionk (talk) 20:36, 3 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Bangalter[edit]

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

One half of the notable electronic duo Daft Punk but no indication of independent notability. Merge or redirect to Daft Punk.

Also nominating:
(1) Roulé (vanity label of Thomas Bangalter)
(2) Together (French band) (another musical project of Thomas Bangalter)
(3) Irréversible (soundtrack) (an album by Thomas Bangalter)

- TheMagnificentist 15:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The ample coverage on reliable independent sources, with and without his partner to duo Daft Punk, (just search Google News) is enough to establish notability per WP:ENT. Some of the other articles might call for a valid discussion separately, but the bundle of everything together actually makes it a Strong Keep. -- IsaacSt (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac, the sources are about Daft Punk, not about Thomas Bangalter as an individual musician. Almost all Google search results show "Bangalter and his partner Guy". Also, WP:ENT does not apply here as it's for entertainers not musicians. WP:MUSICBIO would be the appropriate notability criteria. - TheMagnificentist 18:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The more specific WP:MUSICBIO calls for the same: "subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable". He has many non-trivial mentions with or without Guy-Manuel (e.g. [7]). Since you mention WP:MUSICBIO, criteria 10 reads: "performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a ….. notable film". Irréversible, for which he made the soundtrack, is definitely notable, so even that alone is enough. -- IsaacSt (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most. Keep Thomas Bangalter. Significant member of multiple notable bands WP:MUSIC#6. Has coverage of solo work. Keep Irréversible (soundtrack). By notable artist, for notable film, have coverage from independent reliable sources. If you don't think it's enough for a standalone article merging to the films article is the best option. Deletion should Not occur. Keep Together (French band). Charting. Redirect/Merge Roulé to Thomas Bangalter, lacks independent notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Loads of independent notability for other projects, remixes, soundtracks, and so on. KaisaL (talk) 13:58, 8 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) 01:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fundación Libertad[edit]

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

Non-notable organization, fails WP:GNG. Sources do not establish notability of the organization, they are instead articles written by members of the organization itself. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources and a BEFORE search were passing mentions and don't establish notability. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:01, 3 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dyuden[edit]

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

This article has no sources. In its present form, it does not demonstrate the notability of its subject. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'~~Not sure if it can be fixed, but if it cannot, it's not enough to be kept as of right now. South Nashua (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)~~ Changing to Keep per below. South Nashua (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a Russian Wikisource biographical entry on this person here. AllyD (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This person's name is transliterated in various ways, both in Russian (Туда́н, Тудакан, Дюдень, Дедень) and English (Dyuden, Diudan, Dyudin, Tudan, etc). However, leading a military campaign in 1293 to the detriment of major cities including Moscow, noted in the Chronicles, seems sufficient for encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep inclusion in Плюшар, А. А. Энциклопедический лексикон, СПб. 1835—1841 (as pointed out by AllyD) seems to pass WP:ANYBIO. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think we have sufficient sources now, perhaps barely, to sustain the article. More are needed, and more development of the article is needed. Given he was the general of an army that conducted an extensive campaign, I think it safe to say he passed WP:MILPEOPLE, specifically "Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents" and "Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign". The mists of time and language may make it difficult to develop this article, but there are sources. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Obviously notable; the article is now adequately sourced. It is only a stub, but it may be that materials do not exist to expand it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 9 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Whaley[edit]

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

Non-notable wrestler. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, has been the subject of quite some independent coverage in various reliable sources, not so much for his professional wrestling career but, for example, for the film. Given the era, additional print sources may exist. Huon (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Americas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable more for the movie than for the wrestling, but notable nonetheless due to in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep through the book and movie coverage he has enough coverage for notability. MPJ-DK 14:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG requirements.LM2000 (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 21:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 10 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. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Kitten Surprise[edit]

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

Non notable band fails Wikipedia:Notability (music) WP:TOOSOON Theroadislong (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - still torn on deciding what to vote myself, these are the sources I could locate, excluding interviews: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], and other more minor mentions. Note the university publications don't help much, although I included those above anyways. Yvarta (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 22:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:45, 7 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Garett Jones[edit]

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

This article has superficial referenciness, but the sources are not independent - the entire article is drawn from primary sources associated with the subject. This is not a surprise, since it was created by a user who has been extensively promoting (and paying others to promote) articles supporting fundamentalist libertarian ideology. Guy (Help!) 14:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of the quality of the article, and the motivation of the editor, the subject has received significant coverage. From very reliable sources. Here are three: [19],[20],[21]. Jacona (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A quick look through the "Find Sources" line reveals quite a few non-trivial sources, though without one in-depth dedicated article. After a cursory look-through of all the material elicited, I think, perhaps, a good idea to withdraw this Afd as per WP:EXISTS Tapered (talk) 06:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a good idea nearly to blank the page since, at the moment, it's largely WP:PROMO. Tapered (talk) 06:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - the three sources JaconaFrere provides don't really satisfy WP:RS, I think. The first two are reviews of Jones' books, and not about Jones himself. I'm not sure if that means those books satisfy WP:NBOOK, but they don't imply Jones passes WP:NAUTHOR. The third source is clearly not independent, it is a blog post written by a colleague at the same university. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Jones appears to be notable. I've made the article more neutral and added a criticism section.Jonpatterns (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as WP:Too soon. Cites in high-cited field of pop-economics not yet sufficient, but that may change Xxanthippe (talk) 00:14, 11 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. Note: AfDs should not be relisted more than twice per WP:RELIST unless absolutely necessary. Kurykh (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Cannabis Industry Association[edit]

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

i believe the National Cannabis Industry Association is not notable while many companies in the cannabis industry are well known the National Cannabis Industry Association is not relevant to research on cannabis and this article seems to be one of advocacy of point of view of the organization in the work section also having an article National Cannabis Industry Association violates WP:CORP Jonnymoon96 (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a company but a trade group/lobbying organization that seems to be controversial in the American legalization debate, to say the least, so WP:CORP isn't met and this nom is null and void; lobbying organizations in and of themselves usually advocate for their cause so the con side is naturally with somebody else (you're not seeing the National Rifle Association advocating against their own policies, for instance). Nate • (chatter) 21:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - readers should be able to read up on organizations they read about in the news.--Moxy (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jonnymoon96 (talk) 19:02, 10 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) 01:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Filipinas Broadcasting Network[edit]

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

Unreferenced, no sources for notability, Prod was removed by an IP without explanation or providing sources. I've been unable to find reliable sources through a Googles search. BilCat (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The stations seem to exist - at least one has Facebook - but an owner of just six stations to me doesn't meet the WP:GNG. Raymie (t • c) 00:30, 4 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. See WP:NPASR. Kurykh (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Allen (artist)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NARTIST. A search for substantial independent sources found nothing, unlike the footballer with the same name. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article needs a puffery trim, it only took me a few seconds to find this long quote in the reflist, from the Guardian. This is half off the text that talks about him in The Guardian: "And what of Tommy Angel, stage magician, illusionist and burning-bible thumping "gospel magician"? Like François's deluded soapbox man, he wants us to believe in what can't be proved. Angel is in fact the invention of artist Jonathan Allen, who has cast himself in the role of gospel evangelist, with his sparkly suit and too-perfect smile. His persuasive powers are those of the stage illusionist, with his seamless patter, his boxes of tricks, his smoke and mirrors and misdirections. When I met Allen, briefly, last week, he was negotiating the hire of a live lion for a new act, in which he wished to replicate the story of St Jerome."

I then did a proper search and turned up a significant mention in Cabinet Magazine, a small review in PhotoVideo magazine, a Google Books mention in Art21, mentions in this book on blaphemy in art, and his inclusion in this show at Mass Moca.

From the above I think he satisfies the basic WP:GNG requirement for distributed sources. The Guardian especially is convincing. Any show at Mass Moca is a significant show, given the institution, so from that I take that he also satisfies WP:ARTIST.198.58.162.200 (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 10 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) 01:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Deal Supermarket[edit]

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

This page is either a total hoax or a non-notable one-off. While New Deal existed at one time, all the "locations" listed are former boxes of other stores (like Winn-Dixie) and have no identifiable past as NDS. There is no website, no directory listings online, no reviews online, no news article online, no modern photographs, there is literally no proof of this chain existing at all. The "departments" are generic fluff. TheListUpdater (talk) 18:13, 27 March 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 March 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This chain of stores definitely existed, though there are barely any secondary sources regarding it; just a lot of one-sentence mentions: [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29].

This source states: "This small chain of grocery stores was founded by Walter Heckendorf, Sr., in 1933. At its height c. 1980, the chain had 15 stores in the Central California cities of Turlock, Modesto, Stockton, Manteca, Merced, Oakdale and Los Banos." As well, this source has some detail. How much of those two sources were copied from this 10 year-old Wikipedia article is debatable.

Much of the article is likely original research. It's odd more wasn't written about these stores. The lack of sources led to the first AfD here. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unsourced OR, while containing a full store directory. Not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 8 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) 01:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Blackstone[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GRIDIRON or WP:BIO. Has not played in a fully-professional league. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH. Also not finding significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources of the type required to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 10 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) 01:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Price of Our Silence[edit]

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

Non-notable first novel by a non-notable author. Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NBOOK, promotional article too Spiderone 07:21, 5 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) 01:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B.J. Brown[edit]

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

Local politician lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Fails, WP:POLITICIAN and WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate in a legislative election — if you cannot show and reliably source credible evidence that she already qualified for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of her candidacy, then she has to win the election, not just run in it, to get a Wikipedia article because election. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Well, some candidates, especially the ones who run more than once (like Sara Townsend), can probably get an article. But this one doesn't seem to have enough media coverage yet to merit her own article, so I say, merge to Virginia's 31st House of Delegates district election, 2017 (assuming that article doesn't get deleted too). N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sourcing independent of candidacy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete candidates for state legislature are just plain not notable. Only if there is some other claim to notability could they be considered. Even US congress candidates are rarely indepdently notable, but state legislature candidates even more so. Especially 6 months before the election.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Candidates for state legislature are definitionally not notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are many candidates and having an article on each would not be helpful. No evidence of WP:N. Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 10 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) 01:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Off-licensed drug[edit]

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

There are pieces of notable concepts here but I do not think there is anything here to merge elsewhere because there are not citations here.

My perspective is that the core concept expressed by this article is the idea of a physician recommending a medication in a country which is not licensing the medicine for that use. That makes this article a high-level concept for a combination of off-label use, drugs in clinical research, personalized medicine, the time when a new drug enters the global market but before it is licensed for use in all countries, and some other odd cases.

There are no sources cited and I think there is no one term which combines all these cases as this article is trying to do.

Of the cases it raises, I think it would be interesting to have a Wikipedia article on "medicine which is approved in one country, but not approved by governments in other countries" but this article by this title is not that, and only mentions the concept. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This whole thing is an WP:OR collection of tidbits. That has existed since 2006. So many nooks and crannies in WP where cruft lodges and festers. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:DEL7. No WP:RSMED in over 10 years. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:50, 5 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) 01:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Suprun[edit]

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

Suprun is notable solely for having been a presidential elector, a role that is adequately covered at Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016 E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:10, 3 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) 14:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While he did get a bit of media coverage for his electoral college action, that just makes him a WP:BLP1E. He doesn't need a standalone biography for this; a brief mention in the concept article on faithless electors is all that's actually warranted. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My biggest problem with this article is it leaves hanging a serious BLP issue about a resume claim. This has not been settled in the ensuing 3 months because he is not a public figure and no one cares any more, so it is essentially a BLP violation to have an article on him. Enough can be said about him in the concept article without problematic BLP issues coming up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 10 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 (✉) 18:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World RX of South Africa[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. The article has only one line that duplicates the 2017 season article and a blank table. The event may be cancelled prior November. I didn't see any sense to keep article now. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The event is less than 8 months away and is almost certain to go ahead. There is no issue of WP:CRYSTAL as WRX consistently updates construction to the Killarney circuit on social media. It'll be no sooner you delete the article than it re-appears again. It'll also leave a redlink on the main page. Holdenman05 (talk) 11:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not certain. For example: Rally China was cancelled less than one month before the start. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WRC Promoter never really made an effort to keep the public across their progress though, did they? We're going off the information we have, which isn't CRYSTAL or TOOSOON, as I have explained to you before. Holdenman05 (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage of the construction progress doesn't prevent unseen circumstances (extreme weather conditions, lack of funding, etc). Once again, does your article feature anything that doesn't feature the season article? For now all information we had that the World RX of South Africa will be held in November and it has been already mentioned in the season article, what the sense in the World RX of South Africa article right now? Corvus tristis (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, unforseen circumstances is crystal balling - as that is something that we don't know about; however we do know that this event is so far going to go ahead. So if that's a problem now, why was Rally China included on the 2016 WRC schedule? Why are any of these events still in tables if they might not happen? Furthermore, where was this argument when the World RX of Latvia article was created with the same sort of time difference to it's race? Clearly consistency means nothing to you. If anything, I see this as a pathetic attempt at a vendetta for my challenge to your Formula-related pages. Seeing as your interest in rallycross has only been piqued since then, I can see why this is a problem for you. Holdenman05 (talk) 06:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why you can't answer simple question? What does contain World RX of South Africa article which doesn't contain the season article? Blank table? I have no problems with schedules, as it is the certain thing, and in the case of cancellation we adding a notification that it was cancelled. If I have noticed World RX of Latvia article in 2015, then article would have received the same AFD nomination. Also why since Latvian event was held it is so hard to you add some wording and references to the article, or at least change future tense to past? Why you are so obsessed with future events and blank tables if you can't write something different from the season article? Your actions are the clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Also if we look to the history of nominations for deletions of your articles at your talk page we will see that the quality and the necessity of your articles is not only my concern. Corvus tristis (talk) 08:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try a new tack, and maybe you'll understand this way. Go to the article Newcastle 500. Put that up for deletion. It has no information that is really otherwise necessary to the article or isn't already repeated in the 2017 Supercars Championship one. It's the same amount of time away as this event. I'm confident enough in the response you'll get that you should understand where I am coming from in this article. Holdenman05 (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Why it's so problematical to you to answer my direct questions or at least improve quality of the article to Newcastle 500 level? Corvus tristis (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OTHERSTUFF is an invalid argument for you to use simply because you clearly hold a double standard. You refuse to even consider deleting an article that is in a very similar state simply because it doesn't fit your agenda. If anything, the Newcastle 500 is even less important than this one as this one is in reference to a World Championship. Holdenman05 (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you can talk about anything but not about that you were questioned. We are in the space where we should talking about nominated article not about Newcastle 500. My questions are so hard for you? Corvus tristis (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am answering it, you don't understand it. Holdenman05 (talk) 06:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, because your way of answering is way too remote from topic. I talk about Thomas and you talk about Jonas. Newcastle 500 at least has content different from the season article. You are just squabbling, instead of improving your article to show the notability of the article in the exact moment. Bradv also not sure that the article notable. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your level of perception. It answers enough questions about you as to how qualified you are for editing Wikipedia when you clearly can't put two and two together. Holdenman05 (talk) 10:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another insult instead of reasonable arguments. Another confirmation of your cultural level and constructiveness. I have no more questions to such churl as you. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It also speaks volumes that you responded to my 'insults'. Holdenman05 (talk) 10:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! The event is going to take place and it's nonsense to be worried about Wikipedia space used half a year in advance. People should better concentrate on using their time by producing or improving articles instead of torpedoing other users' work by deletion requests with long and senseless discussions. RX-Guru (talk) 08:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can answer simple question. What does feature World RX of South Africa that doesn't feature season article? What is the necessity in the line that duplicates the season article right now? If it was possible to somehow improve this article now than I wouldn't make the nominat queion. If you disagree that is impossible than improve. Corvus tristis (talk) 09:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! per RX-Guru. Makes no sense deleting an article that will be created a few months after, dispending an huge amount of time (and also extra WP space) that could be used to make something usefull.Rpo.castro (talk) 08:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have forthcoming events on Wikipedia too. In all, unless it's being cancelled, it's too early to nominate an article for deletion. Donnie Park (talk) 19:45, 9 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) 01:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yogendra Tiwari[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and no indication of passing WP:NACTOR. The article has been created repeatedly under different title Joginder Tiwari. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON. Rzvas (talk) 09:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - I'm also in favour of it being protected from creation Spiderone 07:24, 5 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 (✉) 18:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OpenVZ[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:15.211.153.80 with the following rationale "1) a simple google news search is enough to establish sufficient RS coverage 2) prod rationale too generic". Well, WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a very good argument, and not meeting GNG is a pretty big problem and sufficient explanation for rationale for deletion. One good source I see is [30], but I don't think this is sufficient, other sources are less reliable/more niche and in passing. Anyway, we are here now - let see if others can find better sources/arguments in defense of this, or not. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For start brief OpenVZ tutorial in Linux Format magazine:

Sharma, Mayank (April 2010). "Hardcore Linux, OpenVZ: Fast virtualisation". Linux Format. No. 130. Future plc. pp. 96–99. ISSN 1470-4234.

Article/tutorial in Indian Linux For You magazine:

Hussain, Shuveb (May 2009). "Containing Linux Instances with OpenVZ". Linux For You. No. 76. EFY. pp. 66–70. ISSN 0974-1054.

I also found mentions of OpenVZ in two InfoWorld articles (one about server virtualization - 12 February 2007; another about Virtuozzo platform - 3 July 2006). There are few short news on German heise.de - I will look into online sources later. Pavlor (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. [cUser:Fitindia|FITINDIA]] (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now some online sources: [31] (German heise.de/iX magazine - 2016 article about OpenVZ 7); [32] (again heise.de/iX magazine - 2006 short news); [33] (The Register; 3 mentions in big article about history of virtualization, 2011). There seems to be few other pages in German language media (eg. PC Welt article reposted from Pro-Linux.de) - more later. Pavlor (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sorry, but this proposal just reeks of bad science. Anybody who knows the hosting industry well enough also knows that OpenVZ is one of the most popular tools (if not THE most popular tool) out there. It's used literally by thousands of hosting businesses due to its ease of integration into WHMCS, another popular item. You say that WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a strong argument (God, when will this wikilawyering stop!), but alas "The search-engine test may, however, be useful as a negative test of popular culture topics which one would expect to see sourced via the Internet.". Tools used for internet hosting ARE (by definition) one of those things that are the most well-sourced online, so arguing that Google's irrelevant here is kinda indicative to ulterior motives. -- CoolKoon (talk) 04:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Oh and besides, had you bothered to click on the books link above (which you obviously didn't, otherwise you'd see how pointless your proposal is), you would've seen that it's referenced by 95 books as well. It's hard to find any stronger case against the deletion than that. -- CoolKoon (talk) 06:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of these books are reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes - some publishers publish anything you throw at them without any quality check (eg. this one [34] from Packt Publishing). Pavlor (talk) 06:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fine. How about "Detection of Intrusions and Malware, and Vulnerability Assessment" published by Springer Science & Business Media? Or "Virtual Networks: Pluralistic Approach for the Next Generation of Internet" by John Wiley & Sons? Then there's "Testbeds and Research Infrastructures, Development of Networks and Communities" by Springer and "Practical Virtualization Solutions: Virtualization from the Trenches" by Pearson Education. The list just goes on and on with books of publishers you could hardly argue about. Like I said before: only a person who knows nothing about system administration and virtualization could nominate the OpenVZ article for deletion based on its lack of notability. The fact that one hasn't heard about it on FB or 9gag doesn't make it obscure or irrelevant. -- CoolKoon (talk) 08:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selection of few useable sources looks much better than plain statement "it's referenced by 95 books", when some of them are pure junk. Now, is there someone able enough to use some of these sources to improve the article? I must admit, I know next to nothing about virtualization... Pavlor (talk) 08:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, could you blame me if it's obvious that the OP didn't do his homework? Like I said before, I still have a feeling that this AfD entry has been spawned not because of decluttering reasons, but more due to the fact that somebody wants to see this article gone for some reason. To me it's almost as ridiculous as e.g. marking up the cPanel for deletion would be (which is a de facto industry standard).

As for the content, the only thing to add (that comes to my mind) is something about the host/guest systems on which it's confirmed to be running fine. Which'll necessitate some googling. That said, such addition definitely wouldn't prevent any other "seasoned" editor from coming around and marking it for deletion (again) just because he/she hasn't heard about it... -- CoolKoon (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References in the article are too weak to show notability (only golem.de may be RS). That alone cries for AfD nomination. I will try to add some of the sources listed in this AfD to the article, but my knowledge of virtualization is weak at best. Pavlor (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty coverage in reliable sources to estabilish notability. Pavlor (talk) 08:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 31 hits on IEEE Xplore, 27 hits on ACM Digital Library. I think this is sufficiently covered by the academic literature to justify a conclusion that it is notable. SJK (talk) 09:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widely used in the industry ... in fact I came here from Google after looking for information about it despite being a (somewhat) regular editor. Very surprised that in light of the above it's being considered. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 07:45, 10 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) 01:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Hodges (activist)[edit]

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

Dearth of sources establishing notability. Please do not confuse this person with the right wing activist. They are different people. That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google news on name + Marijuanan gives 200+ results - [35] going back to 2010. Here's a number of more substantive ones (not a complete list): [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] Icewhiz (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON; the "news hits" do not establish notability; sources are required to provide coverage that discusses the subject directly and in detail; not PR driven passing mentions, as offered above. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ADVERT, ADVERT for local marijuana seller/activist with insufficient sourcing despite the brief mentions in local news detailed above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a local store operator with no strong claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 7 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) 01:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Darnell (musician)[edit]

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

Per the tags I left, this is a barely sourced autobio of a musician who doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG and appears to be mostly promotional. JamesG5 (talk) 06:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Current sources give no indication of notability. Searching found nothing helpful. No significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. I'll reconsider if better sources are found. Fails general & WP:MUSICBIO. Gab4gab (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For clarity's sake, this is not John Darnielle of The Mountain Goats — which I point out just in case somebody else with casual but not in-depth knowledge of that band is prone to making the same mistake I almost did. For this guy, however, there's no strong claim to passage of WP:NMUSIC being made here, and no strong reliable source coverage present to support it — and indeed, the article was created by a user named "Jdarne01", so this is clearly an WP:AUTOBIO. As always, Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform on which a musician is entitled to have an article just because he exists, much less one that reads like a copy-paste from his own EPK — certain specific standards of achievement and sourceability have to be attained for a Wikipedia article to become appropriate. It's not "create a Wikipedia article for publicity while you try to make it big" — it's "make it big and then you'll get a Wikipedia article". Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 4 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. There's a duplicate "delete" opinion. Sandstein 18:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Ji-on Tokudo Postal[edit]

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

Minimal coverage from secondary sources. Blackguard 16:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject has not been covered by enough sources to pass WP:GNG. She has published some books/papers, none of which seem notable. Apart from this obituary I couldn't find any secondary sources on the subject. — Stringy Acid (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added some secondary sources including a NY Times article, a Tricycle article, and a documentary. I expect there are other secondary sources out there.--Jahaza (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough also appears to be the co-author of a cookbook that's been widely cited for decades.[42][43][44][45][46]--Jahaza (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've contributed additional secondary sources of an interview in SweepingZen [47] and the announcement of a book of tributes via Empty Hand Zen Center. [48] Additional sources will be forthcoming to continue building the bio. SJTP (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established by sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources establish notability that is typical of what has been accepted on Wikipedia for many other biographical subjects. SJTP (talk) 07:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is genuinely something that personally I wouldn't want to delete since Susan seems like a great woman who has achieved great things and her family should be proud of her. With a heavy hand I do have to, unfortunately, state that one source from the NYT is not satisfactory to pass WP:NOTE. @Jahaza: As you very well know WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is not a valid AfD argument. Also, she's not even on the front cover of the cookbook itself and a passing reference to Susan is not satisfactory as per WP:GNG. @SJTP: It is not a good idea to 'vote' for keeping more than once, please change your second 'keep' to a 'comment'. Just because others do it, it doesn't give you an excuse to do the same - just like speeding on a highway. If there are other articles that have not passed WP:GNG then let me know and I'll AfD them too. This is probably my most difficult delete in an AfD thus far, but a necessary one. I even contemplated on WP:IGNORE, but letting this page stay won't really improve Wikipedia. Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 16:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're looking at the wrong edition of the cookbook. The original edition does have her name on the cover[49]. It's odd that you write "one source from the NYT" since I explicitly mention two other secondary sources in my comment.--Jahaza (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jahaza: again, mentioned in passing. The whole article is not about Susan, thus does not re-affirm WP:GNG source criteria. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 17:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NOT MEMORIAL is a perfect summary of why this is not an encyclopedic subject. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 11 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.

No Talk page found to type this comment: This article, after all the hard work that went into it with intent for expansion, was treated unfairly in being deleted so quickly without ample time for discussion. Why such a hurry to do so? Wikipedia is at a disadvantage for this deletion. It appears administrators treat articles about women arbitrarily for deletion; this bio entry about Susan Postal was modeled after many other entries on Wikipedia, namely and mostly about male characters of similar notability. How can those exist or escape monitoring from administrators? Ample secondary sources about Susan Postal have been provided and more were to come. An article on the subject of this deletion inconsistency could be helpful to admins who invest time in deleting articles, rather than in researching to improve more articles. Readers of Wikipedia could have benefitted from learning about Postal's contribution to society, which could be useful for research purposes. This user may start such an article about the rush to delete articles on Wiki, yes, at the risk of getting deletion enthusiasts rushing to remove it. If this comment gets deleted, then it goes without saying...??? SJTP (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The earlier "keep" opinions mostly assert notability because this was initially treated as a terrorist attack. With these charges now dropped, further substantial coverage appears unlikely, strengthening the "delete" side's argument that this is ultimately a routine incident with not more than temporary coverage. This can be recreated if later coverage makes the event appear to be of lasting significance after all. Sandstein 18:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Antwerp attack[edit]

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

Hi It is not a notable attack. The author of the attack drunked a lot. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleter I agree that this "attack" is not notable and should be deleted. A look at news sources shows no continuing coverage. Jolly Ω Janner 08:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~or redirect~~ (can be redirected later if needed) to List of terrorist incidents in March 2017. Clearly newsworthy (WP:NOTNEWS). Timing with London and possibly style with Berlin, passes GNG, arguably notable as similar as part of pattern which is no less notable for deathtoll. Too early to say if will turn from a news item to long-term, but there's sources including ones days after the event [50] [51] [52] [53] [54]. Widefox; talk 09:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Widefox: any official source said that it is evident that the attack is terrorist. --Panam2014 (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We build articles and notability on WP:SECONDARY sources not WP:PRIMARY. Sources are saying threat level not changed, but extra security put on. Per WP:EVENT passes "widespread (national or international) impact ". It's WP:CRYSTAL to say it's terrorism or not, or has no long-term impact. Widefox; talk 09:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Widefox: any secondary source said that it is a terrorist attack. And the secondary sources are based on the investigation results. --Panam2014 (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:N. This nomination is currently unconvincing - alcohol is irrelevant for notability, and so it's as simple as that. Please make a better case, say reasoning it per guideline rather than just stating it is not notable. NYT sources [55] [56] [57]. That's way over WP:GNG counting them as WP:RS (although yes, WP:PRIMARYNEWS). Per EVENT "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable.". Also see WP:BEFORE. Widefox; talk 09:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Widefox: No, the request is totally legitimate, the investigation shows that the author was under the influence of alcohol, there was no claim of a terrorist group and the perpetrator did not Is not claimed from any organization. Moreover, what falls under WP: CRISTAL is the fact of affirming that this event will be notorious. It should therefore be deleted until proof to the contrary. And not the other way around. And then another contributor supports my request so thank you for not passing your personal opinion for the truth. And in the meantime, you have not proved anything. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think redirecting to terrorist incidents is a no go since we have no proof this was such. There's some interesting points at the French wiki: fr:Discussion:Attaque à Anvers en mars 2017/Suppression. Jolly Ω Janner 18:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's already in List of terrorist incidents in March 2017. On one hand we have "charged with attempted terrorism"[58], and WP:NOTTRUTH. On the other, a simpler explanation that fits the evidence that this was not terrorism but a drug-induced mistake by a criminal that fitted recent terrorism. We do not know the truth, so can only reflect what sources say per NOTTRUTH and WP:OR. Widefox; talk 09:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This thwarted terrorist attack received international coverage, only reason it hasn't received more coverage was no one was killed.Cllgbksr (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cllgbksr: it is not a terrorist attack, it is a crime committed by a drunker and a junkie. Please read the sources. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're not mutually exclusive. Has the terrorism charge been dropped? Widefox; talk 15:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS, no one was injured or killed, not notable in my eyes though it should stay on the List of terrorist incidents in March 2017 assuming reputable sources state it was such, not just drug-induced. Kamalthebest (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bit early to say if just run of the mill event, or per EVENT "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." Widefox; talk 08:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per sources, this is pure speculation by the nom that it was not a failed terrorist attempt. I see no reason for deletion at this time.BabbaQ (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BabbaQ: No, the sources don't say that. + the investigations. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it is true that the perp "drunked a lot," it is pertinent that Belgian authorities have charged him with terrorism. International coverage makes it notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: I mostly feel that some want to keep the items to keep them. I do not see any national and international coverage for several weeks and no source speaks of radicalization or ties or interest for a terrorist group. And there are no victims. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I do not see any national and international coverage for several weeks" is a remarkable assertion about an attack that took place 14 days ago.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory:The facts are clear, the attack was mediated only because the media got excited. On the other hand, for the London attack, we always have new information every day. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Panam2014, Although I see that you have been editing longer than I have, perhaps you do not often edit terrorist-related articles. Just for comparative purposes, you might want to look at some other attacks in which no one was killed (except perp): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Tours stabbings, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Endeavour Hills stabbings.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: I think that on Wikipedia, there are two irreconcilable tendencies: the suppressionists and the inclusionists. I consider myself to be at the center, knowing that I have often defended tooth and nail pages that I think deserve to be on the encyclopedia, and here I defend the deletion of a page which in my opinion is not Not eligible. For the article on Australia, the investigators found evidence of its links with terrorism, not here. Or else I want to see recent articles if things have escaped me. And then the author is not dead so we could delete and restore the page if he is convicted for terrorism. For the moment, I look for WP: CRYSTALBALL. Also, please see the others arguments. So, I respect your opinion. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that police found a rifle, knives, and a can containing some sort of suspicious substance in the car. Although the wheels of justice grind slowly, there are highly likely to be further legal developments covered by news media, which is why we don't rush to delete recent crime articles WP:RAPID.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it's clearly an act of terrorism, no matter what else anyone coughs it up as. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyrus the Penner: The facts are there, it is not what the investigators say and the news is clearly settled. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simply stating "it's clearly an act of terrorism" does nothing at all to indicate notability. AusLondonder (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- A variety of bladed and projectile weapons were found in the car, which highly suggest, without a doubt, that the driver was intent on harming people. Considering it follows on the heels of the 2017 Westminster attack, the 2016 Berlin attack, and the 2016 Nice attack, yeah, it sounds like terrorism. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Cyrus the Penner: This does not make it a terrorist attack, and in any case the attack is either terrorist or ordinary, the fact that there is no claim and the attack has not succeeded shows that the attack, Attack is not noticeable. In passing the other wiki have deleted the page. --Panam2014 (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note - The terrorism charge against the suspect was dropped. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should have read the article. This is already in the article. As is the fact that he is being held on weapons charges authroities investigate where he was taking that rifle (not much boar-hunting in Antwerp.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was a minor incident. It has no significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fails WP:NOTNEWS. AusLondonder (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this is back in the news today due to the 2017 Stockholm attack. Suspect continues in police custody on firearms-related charges. Arguments that this should be deleted for lack of coverage obviated by this new round of coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- @E.M.Gregory: now it is clear that it is not a terrorist incident. Please read WP:CRYSTALBALL. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails the WP:10YT. The Nice, Berlin, London and Stockholm attacks will still be notable in a decade, this attempted attack won't be. This article about a relatively minor incident only seems to have been created due to WP:RECENTISM. Also fails WP:NOTNEWS. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL. See similar arguments at Talk:2014 Tours police station stabbing; as demonstrated by today's news, these incidents tend to come back into the news cycle again as similar incidents happen. And, as with 2002 Lyon car attack, they are eventually discussed retrospectively as part of a trend. Moreover, the cache of weapons in the boot of the car may put this into a category of unfolding criminal networks and plots, like the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Balkans terrorism plot. We keep many failed crimes Category:Failed terrorist attempts, and articles about criminal networks Die Wahre Religion. With that weaponry and his attempt to outrun a police chase - by plowing through pedestrians - this dude will turn out to be involved some sort of criminal network. We should keep and revisit if he gets released without further coverage or legal developments.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @E.M.Gregory: It makes no sense to keep an article on a common law attack or an unbalanced person. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stay I mean, we create a new article for every new terrorist attack. How is this terrorist attack less important than the attack in Berlin, Sweden, London? It's just as notable! If you want to delete this article you should delete the other articles as well. The mass media coverage - how much or how little - is no indicator of how important a subject is for an encyclopedia.—Rævhuld (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rævhuld: WP:COVERAGE suggests that the quantity of media coverage is an indicator for the notability of events. One needs to question whether the depth of coverage is enough for this article. Also the last paragraph of WP:COVERAGE is pertinent "Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight either the old event or such types of events generally." Jolly Ω Janner 19:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In spite of the rigorous disinformation occurring above this was not a terrorist attack. Reuters has confirmed that Belgian prosecutors have dropped terrorism charges. The story also notes the right-wing Mayor of Antwerp has been criticised for immediately calling a press conference in which he claimed that this was a "terrorist" incident. AusLondonder (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is kept then this is helpful in improving it or renaming, but it doesn't affect notability. Jolly Ω Janner 02:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because the suspect is not being charged with terrorism right now doesn't mean the coverage is done for and notability is thrown out of the window. New information can be found that will prove otherwise. And AusLondonder, you mentioned the controversy about Antwerp's mayor. THAT is another reason for notability. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how politicians criticising a rival politician for saying something dumb equates to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't record every crime, particularly those where there is no terrorist element. Per WP:NOTNEWS, no one was injured or killed, no terrorist element, not notable. – The Bounder (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the prosecutors, "there was not enough serious evidence of terror legislation breaches" so the terrorism charges were dropped, and this should be carefully reflected in the article to maintain WP:NPOV. Regardless, the nom questioned the notability, and the latest controversy and the fuss in the news (every single day now) make the attack (terror-related or not) clearly notable. -- IsaacSt (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IsaacSt: no, it was not a permanent coverage, the attack was covered only during 1 or 3 days. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The attack took place two-and-a-half weeks ago. Here’s just a sample of the barrage of mentions in the English-language media in the last couple of days: [59]. The French-language media has even more than that, BTW. -- IsaacSt (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IsaacSt:Media coverage serves only to deny the first elements. In short nothing new. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial, curent news with absolutely no lasting significance. It might conceivably have been notable hadi t actually be a terrorist attack, but it wasn't. The possibility, and the similarity to events that actually were accounts for the coverage. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 11 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 keep. Per WP:SKCRIT#1. (non-admin closure) -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 18:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sand bed[edit]

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

Solution looking for a problem. "Sand bed" is somewhat of an idiom, and clearly since there are zero incoming links no one is confusing the terms listed on this dab. There isn't even a good target for a possible redirect. Primefac (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources indicate that there are multiple contexts for this including river morphology; water filtration; fluidized bed combustion; and horticulture. Andrew D. (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - another sensible and useful dab page. No reason to delete any of them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 21:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plausible and ambiguous search term. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 14:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Close please no question of deletion Siuenti (씨유엔티) 14:16, 8 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 Creative Mobile. Kurykh (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nitro Nation Online[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Nitro Nation Online" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Run-of-the-mill racing game. Reads like an advert, really. Calton | Talk 09:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Calton, thanks for the questions, I have to agree, by the definition expressed in WP:GNG this article is not suitable for deletion (Significant coverage with Reliable citations, that are independent of the subject). This is a work in progress and I am hoping to attract more collaboration to improve the article. - RadRacer20xx | Talk

Merge to a section in Creative Mobile. I would say "weak keep" as barely passing WP:GNG with multiple independent reliable in-depth (reviews) sources, such as WP:VG/RS. [60][61] and a bunch of not explicitly vetted RS. A bunch of sources look unreliable though. Notability is not based on article quality or perceived popularity, so being poorly written or run-of-the-mill is not a valid deletion rationale. However, the amount of content is very small, so there likely isn't a need for a separate article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Run-of-the-mill" means "not notable", so yeah, it most certainly IS a "valid deletion rationale". --Calton | Talk 12:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTABLE has a precise definition expressed in WP:GNG, and "run-of-the-mill" or any similar is not GNG criteria. If you say that it is not notable because it doesn't meet GNG criteria, that's one thing. But only saying "run-of-the-mill" ("(un)popular", "(un)imporant", etc.) is subjective and does not reflect community consensus about notability criteria. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HELLKNOWZ - Regarding the 'explicitly vetted RS', after reviewing the list, there are very few sites at the moment that handle mobile games. As for the small amount of content, this article is still being improved upon in my spare time, I'm using the template from similar mobile racing games Real_Racing & CSR_Racing - RadRacer20xx | Talk

There are very few reliable mobile game review sites, because most are no better than advertising blogs with no editorial policies, experienced staff, review criteria or standards, or acknowledgment by peers. In other words, they are not reliable and simply "look pretty", but aren't really suitable sources. This makes the vast majority of mobile games non-notable. 2 sources is technically multiple, but that's barely enough content to justify a separate article.
The two articles you linked aren't the best examples. For instance, the CSR Racing gameplay section is way too large. This is WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:NOTGUIDE. If we keep or merge the NNO content, we will trim it down significantly. All the career and mode information can be summed up in a paragraph or two. Similarly, we can't include large portions of quotes that are copyrighted material per MOS:QUOTE. We have to summarize and paraphrase. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the resource references, this will definitely help me to improve the overall quality of the article! Give me a few weeks to read through everything and check through the vetted review sites to see which ones might have some relevant citations I can use. It's still my preference that this article remains separate than merging into Creative Mobile. - RadRacer20xx | Talk —Preceding undated comment added 09:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Creative Mobile per user:Hellknowz. A section redirect will remain from that, so no encyclopedic information will be lost to the reader. bd2412 T 03:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 19:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 15:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge - I can't help but notice how much more stringent the sourcing standards we apply to recent games are; with anything pre-2010, a single reliable source (vetted or no) is usually enough to get a landslide decision to keep, even if the article has been around for years, but with recent games we delete any articles that don't have a dozen reliable sources as soon as they're created. There doesn't seem to be any logical reason behind this double standard. That said, this is a fairly small article at present, so a merge would work. Addition of a couple more reliable sources would be enough to swing me towards "keep", but RadRacer20xx's post above is his latest contribution to Wikipedia, so apparently he was not able to find anything more.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:48, 10 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. Mz7 (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Trost (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Founder of a minor online gambling company. Doesn't seem to be a particularly notable business person to me. Possibly a publicity bio. Uhooep (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Was significant in UK tech community before moving to America very recently. Very frequently quoted in UK press. Misterpottery (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I notice that a bio of the CEO of Nigeria's 10th largest bank was previously deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladi Balogun. Based on that benchmark I feel this gambling entrepreneur falls short of the mark. Uhooep (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 19:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject is notable, he has been the subject of multiple independent news releases. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:21, 3 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) 14:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not exactly gambling, but event trading (which receives coverage due to election predictions, etc.). Has some notable press from a quick check. It would even seem that his wedding was notable enough for NYT (even though most of his aation is across the pond) - [62].Icewhiz (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a CEO of minor companies are generally not presumed notable, and this article fails to establish notability or signifance. The article is promotional, with hallmark traits of such glorified CVs; sample:

He is regularly cited in the mainstream press for his expertise in the online betting field and around gambling regulation.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]

References

^ "Jason Trost Taking on the Traditional Bookies". The Evening Standard. 2016-02-28. Retrieved 2016-02-28.
^ "Online betting company breaking rules with self-management". News.com.au. 2016-02-28. Retrieved 2015-11-15.
^ "Fanduel has huge revenues but US authorities are threatening to kill it". Business Insider. 2016-02-28. Retrieved 2015-11-15.
^ "Online betting company breaking rules with self-management". News.com.au. 2016-02-28. Retrieved 2015-11-15.
^ "Online gambling in Africa? Don't bet on it". The Wall Street Journal. 2015-09-04. Retrieved 2015-11-15.

No value to the project at this time. The author (Special:Contributions/Misterpottery) appears to have created articles on several marginally-notable businesspeople in the past; see for example:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hussein Kanji

K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability isn't inherited. He's going to get interviews-- anyone with a savvy marketing department gets those-- but the question is whether he is notable as a person independent of his company, and whether the news pieces provide coverage significant to him, or whether he is just mentioned in reference to the company and the articles are really about the impact of his firm. NYT wedding announcement just means one or more people in the announcement is rich, which is not in itself something that makes one notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable and promotional puffery. Kierzek (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. CEOs of minor companies tend not to be de facto notable. I see nothing in this case which persuades me otherwise. 61ontime (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A NYT obituary is an indication of notability , at least for the 20th and 21st century. But for at least the last 20 years their coverage of a wedding does not indicate social or professional prominence. I'd have to check to see how far back that applies--certainly 50 or 60 years ago it did indicate at least some possible notability--or social prominence--or money. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find DGG's argument persuasive as to why the NYT source does not confer notability. Vanamonde (talk) 06:05, 11 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) 01:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Guzman[edit]

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

Subject lacks in-depth, non-trivial support and also fails WP:POLITICIAN. References are brief mentions or lack substance. reddogsix (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She and Sara Townsend are both considered strong enough candidates in a competitive enough district, to make it the fifth-most likely Democratic pickup in the Virginia House of Delegates this year. They've both gotten a significant amount of press in regional papers and have been briefly mentioned in the Washington Post. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 06:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not deal in the realm of election predictions — a candidate is not more notable than the norm just because of pundits' predictions about their chances of winning the seat, because (a) who's "favoured" to win can change over the course of the campaign (see, frex, the fact that Tom Mulcair was "favoured" to become Prime Minister of Canada through the entire first half of Canada's 2015 election campaign, before being overtaken by Justin Trudeau only toward the end), and (b) the results can completely confound anybody's expectations (see Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump; see also British Columbia general election, 2013, in which a nine-point lead for the BC NDP in the polls, on the very last day before the election, somehow turned into a 45-42 loss within just 24 hours.) So a person does not get into Wikipedia just for being predicted as a potential winner of a future election — if they don't already have preexisting notability for other reasons, then they get an article only when the verb is the past-tense "won" rather than the future conditional "may win". Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be referencing WP:POLITICIAN criterion #3, but there's also #2, "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". A candidate can be a political figure. Yes, it's true that an election can confound expectations. But Wikipedia also tends to be all about what reliable sources think is important, regardless of whether it actually is important. Pizzagate would be an example of that; we weren't even going to have an article about it, because it had been debunked, but a certain fringe movement took it so seriously and went to such extremes that it became a big enough deal that it had to be covered in the press and therefore on Wikipedia too. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPOL criterion #2 is meant for mayors and city councillors, not unelected candidates for anything. Bearcat (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it fails WP:POLITICIAN. it shouldn't be kept. Cheers, FriyMan ^talk 06:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if it fails WP:POLITICIAN. But does it? N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POLITICIAN confers notability based on the holding of office, not the mere candidacy for it. So as of right now, yes, it does fail WP:POLITICIAN. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — either you show and properly source that she already cleared a Wikipedia inclusion standard for some other reason before becoming a candidate, or she does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until she wins the election. No prejudice against recreation in November if she wins, but nothing shown here gets her an article right now. Bearcat (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Bearcat. I can find no alternative claim to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitely fails WP:POLITICIAN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that WP:N is satisfied. The references I checked had only superficial mentions. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:POLITICIAN. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:29, 10 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) 01:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colourlovers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I concur with User:DGG who AfD it 3 years ago. This organization does not seem to pass Wikipedia:Notability (websites) or Wikipedia:Notability (companies). The current refs include references to its own website, press releases, and a dead link to a local newspaper. Last AfD had keep arguments, but they just reveal the participants and closing editor's lack of familiarity with the AfD - they were mostly assertioons of WP:ITSUSEFUL, and AFD are not a vote. The only argument of some validity was that the website got a short paragraph in Time's 2008 list of best websites ([63]). I don't think that's enough - one paragraph is still a far cry from the requirement for multiple, reliable, in-depth coverage. We are NOT a directory of minor websites. Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As I said before, "Unimportant social website with no evidence for notability and very little purpose altogether. Previous Afd in 2012, with no consensus-- the keep argument was apparently based on webby awards, which turned out to be webby nominations, which are not significant for notability . The TIME material is mere inclusion on a list, not substantial coverage. Everything else is a press release or the equivalent. The only thing added since then is Alexa rank, which we never accept as indicating notability"

the principal argument in the last AfD was COLOU�R IS IMPORTANT. Has I noticed, I would have considered deletion review. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:29, 3 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) 01:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Talent Group Ltd.[edit]

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

Other than article issues such as lack of sources (one primary source) and some poorly written aspects, which all fall outside of the scope of AfD, I believe this company fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. It shouldn't fail notability if the unverified claim of it being Europe's largest talent agency was true, however that claim should be taken with skepticism as it's unsourced. I couldn't find significant sources and coverage to satisfy the requirements. Rayman60 (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP = WP:CORPSPAM. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:10, 9 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. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa MacFarlane[edit]

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

Not notable educator per WP:PROF and WP:GNG. The mentions that exist are routine and don't confer any sort of notability. Kharkiv07 (T) 02:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the article suggests she is notable. Not seeing anything in Google Scholar suggesting she has a significant citation count, so she fails PROF.--Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 04:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep She is the principal of a well-known and prestigious school, and therefore passes WP:PROF#C6. Previous principals (e.g., Thomas Hassan, Tyler Tingley, Benjamin Abbot, etc.) all have articles on Wikipedia. She qualifies for WP:PROF#C6 again as she was the provost and vice president of academic affairs at the University of New Hampshire—a major university. — Stringy Acid (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C6 applies to colleges and universities, but this is a secondary school. Lesser positions, such as vice presidents and provosts, are specifically not covered by C6. Grayfell (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C6 applies to any major academic institution and it need not be a college/university (e.g., a federal lab), and Phillips Exeter Academy is a pretty famous school. Provosts of major universities can also qualify C6. — Stringy Acid (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you read C6, it becomes pretty clear that Exeter Academy in no way fits any of the criterion spelled out there. Kharkiv07 (T) 00:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it says sometimes qualify, perhaps if they meet GNG, which Lisa MacFarlane doesn't. Kharkiv07 (T) 01:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" major academic institution ": I would consider Phillips Exeter to be a "major academic institution," as one of the oldest and most prestigious American private high schools, founder of several interscholastic groups, etc. — Peapod21 1:34, 4 April 2017

Read the detailed notes below: "of a significant accredited college or university, director of a highly regarded, notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university), president of a notable national or international scholarly society". Kharkiv07 (T) 01:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"etc." Previous principals of said schools have Wikipedia pages. They clearly show that the school is important enough for each principal to have a Wikipedia page. —Peapod21 2:14, 4 April 2017

No, it doesn't, and that's a non sequitur. Those articles must stand on their own sources and own merits. See WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:OSE. Grayfell (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — Stringy Acid (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Stringy Acid (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Heads of secondary schools are only notable if the school is prominent. This one is. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

What is that based on? Grayfell (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent, see above. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:PROF per nom. Grayfell (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She passes WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I didn't see any, do you have any non-routine, substantial coverage? Kharkiv07 (T) 00:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. I've added some refs to the entry already but the truth is there is so much coverage out there, particularly related to MacFarlane's handling of sex abuse scandals at the school, I exhausted my month's allotment of free Boston Globe articles just beginning to browse through it all. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd be willing to call it a pass of WP:PROF C6 based on being principal/headmaster of Exeter or a similar school (Andover, St. Paul's, etc.). However, I think she also passes GNG based on ongoing and substantial coverage in the Boston Globe and AP etc.--Jahaza (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Citation count and WP:PROF more generally are the wrong criteria to use for principals of high schools, most of whom are non-notable, and I don't think WP:PROF#C6 is a good choice for these people (allowing it would open the floodgates to all principals of US public high schools, many of which could make a case for being "major" in some sense). We should use WP:GNG instead. But past precedent suggests that schools at the level of Exeter are exceptional in this respect and that their principals generally pass GNG. And in this case the in-depth coverage of her in major newspapers shows that she does pass. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep. Head of school at Phillips Exeter Academy, article is reliably sources (despite dratted Boston Globe paywall. Why are we arguing?E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:25, 5 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) 01:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Texas vs. Oklahoma State football game[edit]

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

The article's claim of significance was that the game was the largest 4th-quarter comeback in Texas football history. This does not strike me as significant enough to warrant its own article. The sources are all WP:ROUTINE. Also, the article's creator states it was created to reduce the size of another article. The necessity of that is debatable; I'd say this article is an unnecessary fork, and its contents can easily be summarized on the 2007 Texas football article. Lizard (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mediocre opponent means this wasn't an especially significant game. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge). I agree with the nominator's rationale except insofar as he asserts that all the sources are WP:ROUTINE. My delete vote is based on the long-standing practice in the college football and American football projects to (a) include game summaries in articles covering each team's season (see 2007 Texas Longhorns football team#Oklahoma State) and (b) limit stand-alone articles about individual games to bowl games, championship games, or, in rare cases, regular season games that have truly historic or enduring importance. In this case, Texas played poorly for three quarters against a mediocre, unranked opponent and then launched a truly impressive comeback in the fourth quarter. I just don't see anything truly historic or extraordinary about the game to warrant a departure from the general practice. For me, it's not so much a question of notability, as most Power Five games get enough significant, non-WP:ROUTINE coverage to pass WP:GNG. Instead, it's an issue of editorial judgment in how we present content about individual college football games, and I think the existing practice of relying on team season articles is sound. For further detail on the established practice, see (1) 2005 Texas v. Texas A&M; (2) 1996 UCLA vs. Tennessee; (3) 2011 Michigan vs Notre Dame; (4) 2008 Oregon vs. Oregon State; (16) 2007 Missouri vs. Kansas; (5) 2001 Tennessee vs. Florida; (6) 2013 Alabama vs. Texas A&M; (7) 1996 Texas Tech vs. Kansas State; (8) 2006 USC vs. UCLA; (9) 2015 Florida State vs. Georgia Tech; (10) 2007 Pitt vs. West Virginia; and (11) 2006 Texas vs. Ohio State. Cbl62 (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Our long-standing precedent and practice is to avoid stand-alone articles about individual sports matches except in the most unusual/historic cases. All individual sport matches tend to attract significant media coverage, as this one did, in the local and sport-focused media. But I see nothing to override the principal that we avoid articles of this nature. AusLondonder (talk) 18:57, 10 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) 01:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest Raleigh[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines and is promotional in nature. Page creator states on the article talk page that the purpose of the article is "to help people know of its existence and to give basic information and facts about the church" which is precisely what promotion is. I'm not sure the person who removed my CSD tag considered this.

Further, the page creator states that independent sources are coming through local sources- which even if true likely woudn't cause this church to be notable per guidelines. The sources would also need to exist first. My searches could find no independent sources. 331dot (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that I'm not sure what the credible claim of significance cited by the user removing the CSD is. 331dot (talk) 02:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem like a notable church/congregation. Fails WP:GNG (and Wikipedia:Notability (churches) didn't pass, so...). --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - when all is said and done, just a regular church. St Anselm (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- appears to be a very typical NN church. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:30, 10 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) 01:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Breaker[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. He wrestled only a handful of times on NXT as a glorified jobber on house shows and in dark matches, which does not help establish notability. Nikki♥311 02:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 02:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails even our super-inclusive Wikipedia:Notability (sports) (or more correctly WP:ENTERTAINER, which wrestling seems to be part of, according to NSPORT guideline). --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable wrestler.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:32, 10 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Oklahoma vs. Texas football game[edit]

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

The significance of this article rides on the fact that the game was the 100th one played in the series between the two teams, which in itself is not enough to warrant its own article. And the game itself was a blowout. Also, it has not received lasting coverage in subsequent years. The article's contents can easily fit onto the respective 2005 team season articles. Lizard (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Wikipedia:Notability (sports) does not seem to cover games, so that takes us to Wikipedia:Notability (events) (I also don't see anything at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes). Now, there is no denying that such games, as trivial as they may seem for most people, do generate a lot of coverage, because sport is a major hobby for the masses. We are therefore faced with an event that does, routinely, generate a lot of coverage - at the same time WP:EVENT states that "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Whether sport games fall under such routine issue is a BIG topic. This one does have a claim of being notable. Unlike in the other AfD in the series (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Texas vs. Oklahoma football game), I don't see anything here to suggest this game was non-routine, and as such, in lieu of any policy guidelines that would suggest alternative reasons to keep this, I lean towards deletion, seeing this as a non-notable event. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 04:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge). There is a long-standing practice in the college football and American football projects to (a) include game summaries in articles covering each team's season (see 2005 Texas Longhorns football team#Oklahoma) and (b) limit stand-alone articles about individual games to bowl games, championship games, or, in rare cases, regular season games that have truly historic or enduring importance (e.g., 1869 New Jersey vs. Rutgers football game). In this case, there is nothing truly historic or extraordinary about the game to warrant a departure from the general practice. For me, it's not a question of notability, as most Power Five games get enough significant, non-WP:ROUTINE coverage to pass WP:GNG. Instead, it's an issue of editorial judgment in how we present content about individual college football games, and I think the existing practice of relying on team season articles is sound. For further detail on the established practice, see Dirtlawyer1 and others' discussion of WP:SPORTSEVENT and related policies at the following similar AfDs (all closed as delete): (1) 2005 Texas v. Texas A&M; (2) 1996 UCLA vs. Tennessee; (3) 2011 Michigan vs Notre Dame; (4)-(10) 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Games; (11)-(14) 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2014 Cowboys Classic; (15) 2008 Oregon vs. Oregon State; (16) 2007 Missouri vs. Kansas; (17) 2001 Tennessee vs. Florida; (18) 2013 Alabama vs. Texas A&M; (19) 1996 Texas Tech vs. Kansas State; (20) 2006 USC vs. UCLA; (21) 2015 Florida State vs. Georgia Tech; (22) 2007 Pitt vs. West Virginia; (23)-(24) 2013 and 2014 AdvoCare Texas Kickoff, and (25) 2006 Texas vs. Ohio State. Cbl62 (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per well-reasoned nomination. No lasting significance or coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 10 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Texas vs. Oklahoma football game[edit]

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

There was nothing extraordinary about this game. It was just one of many that both teams played that season, albeit it was a rivalry game, which is far from significant enough to warrant its own article. The contents can easily fit in the 2008 season articles of each team. Lizard (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipedia:Notability (sports) does not seem to cover games, so that takes us to Wikipedia:Notability (events) (I also don't see anything at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes). Now, there is no denying that such games, as trivial as they may seem for most people, do generate a lot of coverage, because sport is a major hobby for the masses. We are therefore faced with an event that does, routinely, generate a lot of coverage - at the same time WP:EVENT states that "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Whether sport games fall under such routine issue is a BIG topic. This one does have a claim that " ESPN analyst Ivan Maisel called the game "one of the best college football games of this or any season."" That may be enough to make it non-routine. In either case, I think we need a section on notability of individual games, linked from EVENT and SPORT guidelines. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 04:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge). Per the nominator's rationale and the long-standing practice of discouraging single-game articles except in truly extraordinary/historic cases. Cbl62 (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 10 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) 01:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Buchanan[edit]

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

sigh We find ourselves at AFD again because of a non-notable YouTuber. Those who shall not be named feel that co-forming a notable band makes one notable, but when INHERITED is looked at (as well as a complete and utter lack of substantial GNews or GSearch hits) that claim is utterly refuted. Fails most of our metrics, but mostly GNG and MUSICBIO. Primefac (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aaron Buchanan per WP:INVALIDBIO. Adam9007 (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Being the sister of a questionably notable person and a member of a non-notable band does not satisfy any criteria on Wikipedia. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete INVALIDBIO does not say we have to redirect articles to their relatives. It says that some titles redirect to famous relatives. There are valid reasons to not redirect. In this case, we have one borderline notable person who has a sister that is clearly not notable. The redirect is unlikely to be used, and in my mind, redirects from one BLP to another should probably be used sparingly. Since there is not a good reason to redirect here, and the individual doesn't meet our inclusion criteria, deletion is the best option. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:05, 10 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 Moved to Draft:Accolade Inc.. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accolade Inc.[edit]

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

This article fails to demonstrate the notability of Accolade Inc. It has no references to indicate that it meets the guideline: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Eddie Blick (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 04:57, 3 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. advertising DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move'm[edit]

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

Shameless self-promotion. COI by SPA editor with same name as founder. Non notable, doesn't have significant social media following. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG Rayman60 (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORP = wP:CORPSPAM. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:25, 4 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. consensus of policy-based arguments DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shebin Backer[edit]

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

The references here which are independent (which are not all of them) only mention the subject in passing, offering no discussion. The creator, though not an SPA, is a very new editor. Subject has not won any national or regional awards, no viable evidence of notability found. KDS4444 (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is having required notability, if we look for reliable sources also (provided on the article), its providing required evidences on search results. Further this is not a new editor account ...Captain......Tälk tö me... 13:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "new" in the sense of having made very few edits (<700), not "new" in the chronological sense. Apologies for that. Second, simply asserting that the subject is notable is not enough to make him notable: the first block of references provided within the article are directory listings, which are considered WP:ROUTINE information, and the rest only cover the subject WP:TRIVIALLY. No evidence has been provided of the subject's notability so far, and a Google search turns up Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, and then a list of more trivial mentions as a director or producer, several of which look like they might also lack independence from the subject and none of which contains discussion of him (as best I could tell). This article needs references to non-trivial discussion of the subject in reliable, independent, secondary sources in order to establish his notability. I did not find such. If anyone can do so, please feel free. KDS4444 (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is a film producer and specifically what kind of Web finding we have to look for the subject as per the policy. Subject have an IMDB page and established as producer (as per the evidences available). I will further look for more deeper online search (have seen print articles on the subject with main focus) but prints are not online, Please move the article to my namespace, if its gets deleted on the above rules. Will re-enter with adequate details, Respecting WP:OSE - ...Captain......Tälk tö me... 18:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG not met. Sources I could find are all passing mentions or PR. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Passing mentions, minor non-notable awards, not meeting WP:CREATIVE. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 04:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 10 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) - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Berachampa Deulia Uchcha Vidyalaya[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Has had no sources, and has been tagged as such since January 2012. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 06:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 03:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the claims were true, it would certainly be notable since it is a secondary school with a pretty large population. That being said, I can't find any non-Wikipedia mirrors that show it exists, which is odd for a school of the size, even in that region. I've been able to find sources for 100 student schools in the tribal areas of Pakistan before, so the lack of sources here worries me. If someone can find sources, please ping me and I'll change my !vote to keep, but otherwise, we have a huge WP:V problem here. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gov site: it exists. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per systemic bias concerns raised in the RfC. A secondary school of this size is inevitably notable and there would likely be sources to meet WP:GNG if someone had the language skills and physical proximity to locate them. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A secondary school that is at the very least verified to exist. SL93 (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The school may exist, but there are no reliable sources to support this (or any) article content. Sandstein 17:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources. That it exists is not sufficient to make it encyclopedic. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 05:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of available sources to base content on. The school might have been demonstrated to exist, but that's about it. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing NSCHOOLS and GNG. I am mindful of the systemic bias concerns outlined by the schools RFC, but, ultimately, we are an encyclopedia, not a social justice project. No sources, no article. Even if reliable, independent sources providing significant coverage do exist somewhere, it appears unlikely anyone will be able to locate or translate them, meaning that, for the purposes that matter—neutrality, reliability, thoroughness—they're worth nothing. Rebb ing 17:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GNG makes it clear that sources do not have to be available online or written in English. The systemic bias concerns here should weigh heavily. The sources provided demonstrate that GNG would likely be met if someone had the resources to find them. The best argument for deletion here is no original research, but the article can be scrubbed of that, and still meet our notability criteria. Just from a basic glance of the sources provided, this is at least as notable as a 200 person high school in the rural United States that gets kept because the school football team is the biggest news in the town. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that offline, foreign-language sources count for notability. However, notability cannot be met by hypothetical sources: "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability," WP:NRVE (emphasis added); the sources listed below are mere passing mentions that do nothing to demonstrate notability. GNG is not written in terms of sources proponents imagine exist because imaginary sources can't be used to write articles. The schools RFC reaffirmed that this holds even for secondary schools: "Editors are not expected to prove the negative that sources do not exist, but they should make a good-faith effort to find them." I made an honest effort to locate usable sources but found nothing; if you believe there is foreign reporting that provides significant coverage, it's on you to show it. That such has not put forward during this discussion suggests that it doesn't exist. Rebb ing 13:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rebbing: I've added more coverage. The school has been covered by several newspapers. — Stringy Acid (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as articles on high schools are usually kept provided the schools are verifiable. I'm surprised that the previous commenters couldn't find sources to verify the existence of this school. Page 2, item 110 of this PDF from the website of the Council of Higher Secondary Education of the Indian state of West Bengal lists the school. And this website of the West Bengal Council of Secondary Education classifies the school as a boys' school (which corroborates a claim in the article). This school is also listed in the mid-day meal program sponsored by the Government of India. Lastly, a student of this school is also mentioned in an article on Two Circles (not a very high-quality source, but good enough for verifiability). Having said all this, all unsourced material ought to be removed, and the article should definitely be cleaned up. — Stringy Acid (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An article (page, image) on the school in Anandabazar Patrika, a Bengali daily with more than a million circulation. Though the article is in Bengali, parts of it can be translated (disable Adblock for both websites). I'll ask someone at the Bangla Wikipedia for a proper translation. — Stringy Acid (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another Bengali article in Zee News' Madhyamik discussing the performance of students from this school and various other schools in their board examinations. This is a large school in a highly populated area, and I'm pretty sure more such articles can be found. (The school's name translates to "বেড়াচাঁপা দেউলিয়া উচ্চ বিদ্যালয়" in Bangla.) — Stringy Acid (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, As the sources given by Stringy Acid, its a secondary school and its verifiable. Thus it is easily pass GNG. -Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and per this which clarifies that it is a notable higher secondary school. --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nomination is an example of the WP:GEOBIAS present on this project. There is no way a secondary school of this nature in North America would be nominated for deletion. Good sources have now been found through the hard work of Stringy Acid (which clearly should have been done by the nom per WP:BEFORE). AusLondonder (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. there seem to be enough surces for verifiability , and that's al that's really need to justify a high school article. If we are going to delete the truly marginal articles on high schools, there are many worse than this--and if the verifiability is weak, I'll support the deletion. But the consensus that all verifiable HS are notable still holds--and needs to hold, or we will be spending half our afd energy on these articles, when we need to be devoting our efforts to the commercial promotionalism and the paraphrases of web sites that constitute many articles on non-commerical organizations. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 11 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RoPeCast[edit]

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

From the removed PROD tag: "Searches turned up very little about this podcast, a few trivial mentions, clearly does not pass WP:GNG. And unfortunately the "Saarland state award in higher education" is not a notable award." Calton | Talk 02:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First, sorry to have missed the original prod. Searches of both the podcast and the award returned virtually zero. The award is a regional educational award. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the original author I of course vote keep. I've so far presented my arguments to the author of the "prod" and repeat them here:
- According to WP:WEB the award must be "well-known" and "independent". In my opinion an award by a federal government does qualify here with respect to both criteria. I think the wording "well-known" was chosen intentionally not to re-use the notion to be defined "notability" or "notable" (which were used in the 'nomination'). I thus consider it a Wikipedia-independent criterion and in no way higher (as indicated by Onel5969 on his talk page) or lower than these standards, but unrelated and having the semantic flexibility needed for its various applications throughout the notability guidelines. Otherwise its use would introduce a circular logic.
- Furthermore you cannot apply Wikipedia's notability criteria (which the nomination reasoning does) to the award in order to judge the notability of the phenomenon in question. That would be introducing an inheritance dependency that is explicitly excluded in the guidelines (although the examples given work in a descendent fashion, I think this rule must hold in an inverted manner as well in order to be coherent).
- A regional award... Any award issued by any federally-organised subordinate entity is by definition regional. Would you argue the same way if it was the state of California that awarded the prize? And if you make a difference there, would that in turn be more notable then a prize awarded by the state of Rhode Island? I think that's an unjustified focus on 'body size' not to mention any parts thereof ;-)
- Secondly how can anything language-related not be regional? As an offer to learners of English as a foreign language it is very unlikely that "well-known" can ever stretch to large areas of the world in an 'un-regional' fashion, namely those speaking English natively.
- With respect to the original 'nominator's' search for references ... No offense, but don't you think the "google it" approach is a tad to simplistic and superficial to be a decision criterion here, even if we are dealing with an online publication as the lemma? No one considered for example that a prize awarded by a German executive organ is very unlikely to officially carry an English name? So of course any search for the English translation results in very little hits. Instead one needs to consider Landespreis für Hochschullehre Saarland. Any search engine should be a lot more obliging if used with the appropriate search terms. ;-) --chris 論 09:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you argue the same way if it was the state of California that awarded the prize? Yes. Next question?
Secondly how can anything language-related not be regional? Two words: Berlitz and VOA. I could add others, but that should suffice.
... but don't you think the "google it" approach is a tad to simplistic and superficial to be a decision criterion? It's your job to prove notability, not the nominator's. --Calton | Talk 11:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VOA carries its regional character in the name.
I wasn't saying that I want the nominator to prove notability, but that he interpretes the guidelines in a way that is at least debatable if not contradictory. I say the award is independent (as the awarding government is not involved in the production of the podcast), and it is well-known (and, yes, regional) prize. I don't see how regional and well-known are mutually exclusive. Accordingly, one precisely defined notability criterion was met, not mentioning the secondary publications that are also present. --chris 論 12:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VOA carries its regional character in the name . That's either breathtakingly ill-informed or clumsy Wikilawyering. Possibly both. And what's your excuse for Berlitz? --Calton | Talk 00:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I accept User:Chrkl's explanation of notability. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable podcast, minor coverage, minor regional award. Having read the above discussion I concur with the nom. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability tries to rest on a single award, just a few weeks ago, which is a good start, but there's as yet lack of evidence of WP:SUSTAINED notability.GliderMaven (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article, and not important enough to justify rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 11 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. Kurykh (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Lefebvre[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a musician and entrepreneur, with no strong evidence of notability and no strong reliable sourcing -- except for a single news article from a wire service, this is otherwise parked entirely on primary sources like the subject's own blog, his own Twitter and his staff profile on the website of an organization he was on the board of. This is not the type of sourcing that it takes to make someone notable -- there's enough content here to deem him notable if he could be properly sourced over WP:GNG for it, but there's exactly nothing here that entitles him to an automatic inclusion freebie just because he exists. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs to be re-written - with a focus on Neteller, the gambling case, and the 100 million dollar forfeiture (the music? environment? Sure, can mention - but secondary). This was a major case involving circumvention, via online methods, of gambling laws in the US - and has garnered interest way after it was closed (the case itself - 2007), for instance this book - [64] in 2014 - a whole 480 on Neteller & Lefebvre. Lefebvre clearly meets notability/notoriety (also for the post-Netteller stuff) - the article itself needs to be better sourced and written - as is it conceals the notoriety with quite a bit of fluff.Icewhiz (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - also I wouldn't list him as a musician (assuming the two releases didn't hit the charts). I'd mention he dabbled in music (and released whatever) - but not list him as a musician.Icewhiz (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article" (WP:NEXIST) and there's enough sources out there. The article doesn't seem to me to contain anything contentious. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is only related to his fraud conviction, that's WP:ONEEVENT, etc. This is not enough to make him encyclopedic. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 05:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he was convicted for illegal gambling and possibly money laundering, not fraud. Neteller was significant pre-conviction - Lefebvre. The conviction itself was super significant - both for the size of the forfeiture and for online circumvention of US gambling laws. And post-conviction he has continued to do some "noise" (music, advocacy, whatever) which generated some attention - he didn't fade back into normalcy.Icewhiz (talk) 06:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neteller already has an article. But it's not a sufficiently important crime to warrant an article on the person , and there does not seem to be anything else. The article in addition is especially remarkable promotionalism with absurd claims for importance, such as he "recorded a double CD album entitled ... with the help of the legendary record producer Brian Ahern, whose previous credits include producing records by Emmylou Harris, Marty Robbins, George Jones and Ricky Skaggs. This was John's first effort as a solo artists". That's a remarkably far stretch for inherited notability . DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His role with Neteller is important and he has been the subject of a book by a reputable author. [65][66]. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:45, 11 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. No consensus for a particular action has emerged from this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Bishop[edit]

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

While this article has been in existence since 2005 and while it has been worked on by a number of people, the subject himself has not received any notable national awards for his work and in 12 years the article on him here has not acquired appropriate references to non-trivial discussion in reliable, independent, secondary sources. I went looking for some in order to try to fix this, and what I found were several of the subject's own publications and occasional trivial mentions and listings in directories— I did not find the kind of coverage necessary to verify this article's subject as notable, and inasmuch as the article's age and number of contributors are not usually considered evidence of bona fide notability (per WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions), it looks like we should not retain it. KDS4444 (talk) 07:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak delete~~ - I believe the subject is notable, but there does seem to be a lack of supporting sources online. I found these three: found these three that mention him in a way that implies notability, but don't actually discuss that notability directly. This seems like a borderline case of WP:INHERITED - how many notable things can he be involved with and not achieve a degree of notability himself? I would be very happy if another editor was able to locate some better sources and change my mind. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Argento Surfer: I've done some work adding sources, to the point where WP:V should hopefully be met for major points and I'm happy taking the needs sources tag off of the article. Possibly the combined sources mean the article now scrape by on WP:GNG, though I would argue (below) that it should probably be kept per WP:CREATOR. Artw (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work Artw. I've reversed position to keep. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Not seeing any awards or anything to have him meet WP:CREATIVE. The article is a list of works and WP:OR/unreferenced biography. No indicaiton any of his works received criticial attention. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 05:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Strongly suspected COI given that there are insufficient sources to suggest otherwise. Clearly fails SIGCOV. Might pass GNG if sufficient appropriate sources were found. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs expansion and additional references but I would argue that as an editor of 2000ad and the Judge Dredd Megazine for a good portion of the 90s and in the process of that bringing a good deal of new talent into the comics industry, as well as being the instigator for the creation of several well known comics characters, he meets the 1st and 3rd critera of WP:CREATIVE. Artw (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep satisfied the article and subject meet the including policies. Bishop is notable and has been interviewed broadly regarding his role as editor of 2000AD. Hiding T 08:23, 10 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. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3DimViewer[edit]

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

The prod was contested. There is no coverage of this software that makes it pass WP:N. SL93 (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete can't find any sources to show notability, looks more like promotion. KylieTastic (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:08, 1 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 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The log of April 1 is overfilled
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NSOFTWARE, not seeing any reviews or works about, etc. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 05:17, 3 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 merge to Iran student protests, July 1999. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tabriz University's student movement, July 1999[edit]

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

I don't think the article can stand alone as not enough sources can be found dealing with the subject in depth. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please elaborate your argument about not having enough references further? All the points that are claimed in the article are mentioned in the references that are cited. The references look established and reliable. --F4fluids (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Iran student protests, July 1999 The subject isn't notable enough for a standalone article. The Arabic version is no better and the Farsi version isn't linked, if it exists, at all. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Iran student protests, July 1999. We do not have enough to make a worthwhile free-standing article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The log of April 1 is overfilled
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, keeping in mind that at least the middle ref to a blog is non-reliable and has to be discarded. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 05:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is fine, although delete could be appropriate as well. This seems to be a POV fork (especially given the article creator seemed aware of the article, Iran student protests, July 1999, given the same infobox is used, but didn't link to that article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:55, 3 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) 08:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jyoti Magar[edit]

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

There is only one reference in the article which is brief and is in fact an interview. My search did not reveal any reliable sources talking about her. Ymblanter (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The log of April 1 is overfilled
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE, at best WP:TOOSOON. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 05:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 6 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. Sandstein 18:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for the Analysis of Global Security[edit]

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

This article has been tagged as lacking independent sources for nearly 8 years now, and none have been added. Google turns up some namechecks, but I didn't see any sources about this group. Guy (Help!) 19:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, to enlight the talk, the groups publish a good deal of articles, including in major news papers.

Note : I created the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security article in 2009 since it appeared multiple times in my sources while writing the article Africa–China economic relations. I have no special acquaintance with the institute, and don't know its popularity. I also think it's rather good to have article on "think tanks" and academic sources, so we can know WHO they are, which side they are, and take what they write more carefully. Yug (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just sent them the following email. Yug (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC) :[reply]

@: info@iags.org : IAGS's wikipedia article under review Dear IAGS, The Wikipedian community is reviewing your Wikipedia article[1] and weighting it's viability on Wikipedia. The community is mainly looking to evaluate the global reputation of your Institute. You can support the "Keep" position for your article by doing the following : - Go on the ongoing deletion talk[2] - Share with us links to external and neutral sources who introduce the IAGS, - (Share links to documents introducing the IAGS, but your own writing presenting conflict of interest, will have less credibility to evaluate global reputation) - Please, when editing the page[1] or posting a message on the ongoing talk[2], remember point out what is your relations with the IAGS. Also, as a general and long term note, we encourage you to publish more content under Creative Commons Licences, so it spread more efficiently online, and can be reused more easily by Wikipedia. This license is especially suitable for your About page[3]. Best regards, [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_the_Analysis_of_Global_Security [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Institute_for_the_Analysis_of_Global_Security [3]: http://www.iags.org/about.htm -- Yug

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The log of April 1 is overfilled
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It exists, and its works/people are cited in some news/book/scholar sources, but nothing suggests it is notable in itself. Our criteria for NGO notability are not good, but I'd be ok with as much as a single sentence discussing its importance, significance, etc. In lieu of that, well, we are not WP:YELLOWPAGES... --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 05:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 3 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) 15:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is an absence of substantive coverage here. Vanamonde (talk) 05:59, 11 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) 08:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Fort Shopping Park[edit]

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

Non notable shopping centre fails SHOPPINGCENTRE & GNG (Just for clarity this is a serious nomination), Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 19:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The log of April 1 is overfilled
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable shopping center. WP:MILL.There is a bit of news from 2015 about a severe storm toppling a tower into the parking lot, but that is just one incident. MB 04:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced WP:CORPSPAM. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 05:30, 3 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. postdlf (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Counts of Tarragona[edit]

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

Also nominating:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These three lists were created by the same editor in 2012, each with a single name in the list. They are based on individual titles given to Alfonso II of Aragon in a book by Roderick Stuart, Royalty for Commoners, a source that has been savaged in several published reviews as being untrustworthy, to say the least. In each case the point seems to have been to highlight a supposed subsidiary title attributed to the same monarch by Stuart.

List of Counts of Gerona duplicates Count of Girona, although the title seems to have gone out of existence as an independent entity several centuries earlier, but nonetheless this one ~~should~~ could perhaps be made into a redirect. I can't find any evidence that the others existed at all, as independent titles, and they definitely should to be removed. Agricolae (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all -- not useful as list articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all This is a bunch of lists, that give no added information, that all contain the one same individual. There is no gain from these lists, especially since they are based on a source of questionable reliability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - unreliable sources and even if valid, hardly seems notable.Glendoremus (talk) 05:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DElete all -- These are at best subsidiary titles of monarchs. Count of Girona is a useful article, but we do not need a separate list duplicating it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - These are only list articles with insufficient citations. UserDe (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The log of April 1 is overfilled
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made the Gerona one into a redirect while leaving the AFD notice in place, but this has been reverted by UserDe with the notice that "this notice must not be removed". Srnec (talk) 04:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure the notice said not to blank the page until the discussion is closed.UserDe (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, also Peterkingiron. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:56, 3 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 (✉) 01:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of photo and video apps[edit]

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

This article should be deleted as it is WP:DIR as it is a simple list of items and a sales catalog as it lists the price, description and availability (what OS's it will run on) of photo and video apps. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list doesn't meet any of the criteria for non-encyclopedic content in WP:DIRECTORY. It's a list of articles which we can assume meet notability requirements. The policy Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates explains why a well defined list of articles like this can be desirable, alongside categories and navboxes. There are innumerable comparable lists at Wikipedia:Featured lists. Cleanup, expansion, etc are always possible; prices should be deleted per WP:NOPRICES. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it does need more work but I don't see any reason for why it should be deleted. It is not a sales catalog - the prices are simply crucial information; them being displayed there also allows for better comparison. I oppose removing the prices but that could be discussed on the talk page there. I think that this list and lists like it could be very useful for many people. --Fixuture (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article functions as a stand alone list. Strongly support deleting guide content relating to price and all external links to GooglePlaystore, etc as per WP:NOTLINKFARM. Ajf773 (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a list of articles that currently exists. Maybe you can make a discussion on the article's talk page about the removal of the "sales catalog" information. SL93 (talk) 10:20, 8 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] "Jason Trost Taking on the Traditional Bookies". The Evening Standard. 2016-02-28. Retrieved 2016-02-28.

[2] "Online betting company breaking rules with self-management". News.com.au. 2016-02-28. Retrieved 2015-11-15.

[3] "Fanduel has huge revenues but US authorities are threatening to kill it". Business Insider. 2016-02-28. Retrieved 2015-11-15.

[4] "Online betting company breaking rules with self-management". News.com.au. 2016-02-28. Retrieved 2015-11-15.

[5] "Online gambling in Africa? Don't bet on it". The Wall Street Journal. 2015-09-04. Retrieved 2015-11-15.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]