Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 March	18 March >

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 redirect to Robert Durst. Kurykh (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen McCormack Durst[edit]

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

This person is not independently notable. Her notability is achieved through Robert Durst. Indeed, a lot of the material in this article is duplicative of the material in Robert's article. Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do we host missing person articles? This user has created many such pages. Mlpearc Public (open channel) 23:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but change title I feel this article is notable as info about this can be found all over the internet, and even if some of it is linked to her former husband, it should still be included, and I am totally fine with changing it to the Disappearance of Kathleen McCormack Durst

Davidgoodheart Note to closing admin (probably an admin as I don't see snow anywhere this fine March 77º day) page creator made this vote

Keep but change title This person is notable by virtue of her disappearance. There are many similar articles about missing people who are notable only because of their disappearance. Therefore, the title of the article should be changed to Disappearance of Kathleen McCormack Durst. Akld guy (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Robert Durst. Missing persons are notable, but not when their article is duplicated off something else. Or stub. L3X1 (distant write) 21:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect Her notability is achieved through the Robert Durst article. Most if not all of the article is duplicative of the material in the Robert Durst article. No reason for 2 articles with the same content. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 00:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Robert Durst (section on her). -- Dane ^talk 01:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect When she was around, few noticed. Since she hasn't been, the attention's on her husband. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete WP:A7 Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vesselka Mega Star[edit]

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

One brief mention in a single source is not sufficient evidence of notability. My own search didn't turn up anything else. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Per A7. Non notable promo article of small foreign YTer on en.wiki. L3X1 (distant write) 21:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:10, 20 March 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) 00:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan Ashik[edit]

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

Totally and utterly non-notable "actor" - all roles are minor parts and mostly unverified. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR and 4/6 of the movies they claim to be in haven't been released at this point. Most of the sources are unreliable and I can find no real coverage, reliable or otherwise about this person. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 (i.e. the A7 tags should never have been removed). No significant coverage, half the refs are to IMDB, and the rest are typical "lets list every person in the film" coverage. Nothing significant, fails GNG. Primefac (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - entirely non-notable person; an article written by the subject was previously deleted at this title (its content was not similar to this article). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A7 and possibily G5: This article looks like a copy of Simple:User:Aryan Ashik which was created by User:Aryan Ashik who was blocked for using multiple accounts see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faisal Imtiyaz Khan/Archive. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also G3: I tried but failed to find any single source to support his role in any of the film listed in the article except self-created IMDb. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete maybe after the 4 upcoming films he is said to be in come out there will be sources to show notability, but not now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GSS, fails NACTOR, GNG, maybe even CIO it sounds like.. I can't add to what's been said, this discussion should be closed. South Nashua (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet GNG. Arunram (talk) 11:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:NACTOR. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:51, 24 March 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) 00:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sherlock[edit]

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

The band appears to fail the general notability guideline and notability guideline for bands. While the BBC article referenced is legit, the band has not been the subject of any other significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.The band perhaps do fulfil the following requirement though, with their MVM TV performance on national TV in Portugal: '12: Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.' As featured in the wiki page. Is this correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nataliemortensen (talk • contribs) 23:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unotable band. Not the Porteguese wiki. L3X1 (distant write) 21:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The television segment they were in doesn't meet WP:NBAND because it doesn't appear to be a major national television network in Portugal, nor do we have sourcing that it was for broadcast or substantial. A band around for seven years in the 2010s ought to have lots of coverage by now, and they do not, one local BBC article isn't enough. KaisaL (talk) 23:56, 23 March 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 close - No new rationale has been given in this proposal since the first three nominations. The proposer should become more familiar with AfD before adding more requests. Fuzheado | Talk 12:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cuckservative[edit]

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

This seems to be more of a definition of a slang term than an encyclopedic article. Is this really notable enough to warrant an article? TheDracologist (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to notice how many times this had been nominated before. However, my point still stands. I don't think this is a notable encyclopedic subject. TheDracologist (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another option would be to merge it into Republican In Name Only. TheDracologist (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 17 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) 23:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm sure this nomination was in good faith, first of all. Since previous no consensus nominations, there has been more reliable sources covering the term. A couple of examples: An IP times article and an opinion in The National Review by Jay Nordlinger. By themselves they might not be much, but combined with all the other sources, notability has been established. I think that in this case the word itself is specifically covered in depth, making it an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia, as discussed in previous AFDs. Grayfell (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources in article and discoverable through searches demonstrate the notability of the term. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand the reasons for this article's existence a bit better and while I still think the subject of the article is better suited to a dictionary than an encyclopedia, I can see how one can argue that it has enough coverage to be here. I'm just concerned that this article might be an example of recentism. Perhaps it would be a good idea to merge articles like Cuckservative and Republican In Name Only into an article about pejoratives conservatives use to accuse people of betraying their own party and maybe also create a parallel article for liberal pejoratives of a similar nature. TheDracologist (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The two terms are distinct enough, with one coming much later and with a different context than the other, that I think a merge would either be really muddled (dealing with general discontent with the GOP) or functionally the same as having two articles (but on one page). If there's more examples of these terms, a list could be made, with links to individual articles. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep distinct terms are notable. I believe NOTADICT. was made for special cases like this. Who knows, are slang terms notable or not? Esp. non universal slang. L3X1 (distant write) 21:55, 18 March 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) 00:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashtin-larold[edit]

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

The WP:SPS Genius.com and the YouTube link clearly do not establish notability, certainly not for a WP:BLP. All I can find by Googling Ashtin-larold are just various other self-published sources. Jasper Deng (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First off I would like to say I messed up, I thought the save button would save it for later, not publish it entirely. So, for now, deletion is understandable.

Furthermore, why doesn't the Genius link. That is a link to his artist biography page. And it isn't self-published in any shape or form. Nothing on there is. I can understand why you said that doesn't establish notability for a WP:BLP. But that is where I learned that "he gained 4 thousand fans." Isn't that a citation?

I'm sorry if this isn't where I was supposed to do this, I'm very new and rusty at this.Bigdbigd03 (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Bigdbigd03[reply]

P.S This page must be deleted, Ashtin-Larold is incorrect. The hyphen ("-" in Ashtin-Larold) should be an underscore. In links that is a substitute for a space. Sorry for any inconvenience caused. Bigdbigd03 (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Bigdbigd03[reply]

Delete per nom. Not the subject of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rapper with insufficient sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.Non-notable rapper.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:12, 24 March 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) 00:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SogoTrade[edit]

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

The history of this article is baffling. This article was created in 2006 but there is an AfD that says it was speedy deleted twice. Cannot work that out. Anyway, there is only one source here and independent RS with significant discussion have been scant since it was created. If you look at the history it has mostly been edited by blatantly conflicted editors and SPA accounts, which I have identified at the top of the Talk page. Per revision stats top contribuors to this article are all SPA for this company. There are currently insufficient independent sources with significant discussion of Sogo to justify an article. It is not notable and under consistent promotional pressure since it was created. And again how it is here after two speedies, I don't know. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Promo article for non notable company. If the result of the other AfDs were A7, than this one can be A7d, right?L3X1 (distant write) 21:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I cannot figure out the history of this article (if it had been speedied twice by 2008, how could it have a history that dates back to 2006?). A formal AfD seemed to be the way to go. Glad you agree, anyway. :) Jytdog (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog Even the logs show it as deleted [1]. Its even more odd that 2 different admins deleted it 3 times in 3 days. I am certainly stumped. L3X1 (distant write) 22:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ah, here is what happened. Mystery solved. The redirect at SogoInvest should be deleted when this is. Jytdog (talk) 22:41, 18 March 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. Closing per WP:SNOW. Bishonen | talk 21:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bowling Green massacre[edit]

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

This article is essentially an attack page aimed at the Trump administration. It is focussed on a misstatement that generated a lot of media attention at the time. From recent history, it seems clear that the Trump administration will continue to make similar misstatements. We do not need an article for each one. They can be adequately dealt with in passing in other article. In addition, this article is set up in a satirical way, referring to a massacre that didn't happen, which goes against the policy of neutrality Jack Upland (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's an internet meme, and nothing more. The article does not even acknowledge Conway's efforts to clarify. Nobs01 (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third paragraph of the lead: "The day after the Hardball interview, Conway said she misspoke, and had been referring to the arrest of the two Iraqi nationals. She stated that she had mentioned the incident because it led President Barack Obama to tighten immigration procedures for Iraqi citizens." – Muboshgu (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The inference that a massacre occurred is an extrapolation by critics. Conway never said such a massacre occured. And as defenders of this article claim, an event doesn't have to occur to be an event.Nobs01 (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She said a massacre occurred. Nobody extrapolated anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing all the article's underlying sources, nowhere did Kellyanne Conway say an incident occured. All discussions were in the context of prevention. Nobs01 (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes she did. The quote is in the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When she said "Bowling Green massacre", was she talking about an event that happened, or a plot on the drawing board as the indictments and DOJ and FBI press releases indicate? Nobs01 (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She said "they were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre". That's pretty self-explanatory. It's not a "massacre" if nobody died. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are presenting my argument now. It's not a "massacre" if nobody died. Why do we have this article, then? or why is it titled a massacre? Nobs01 (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because fictional events can be notable, too. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The question is whether this misstatement, and the internet meme it touched off, are notable enough for inclusion. The answer is clearly yes. This got enormous coverage at the time but it wasn't a passing thing; it was still getting plentiful coverage a month after she said it [2]. Part of the reason for its notoriety is that it was clearly not a slip of the tongue, but a carefully memorized talking point (based on the fact that she used virtually identical language in three separate interviews). BTW Nobs01, the article DOES devote a paragraph to her subsequent explanation. --MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- As an internet meme it needs to be labeled as such in the opening, rather than the convoluted attack on a living person. Nobs01 (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an internet meme, it's a "fictitious incident", just as the lead sentence explains. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This alternative fact clearly became notable per WP:GNG with WP:LASTING effect. Here's a source from ten days ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yes, I'm a little surprised to see this at Afd], perhaps. I think we have more than enough coverage of this meme tom meet WP:GNG and WP:LASTING. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised when deletion's been discussed on the talk page for a month???--Jack Upland (talk) 08:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is now linking to a fraudulent fundraising site. This meme is out of control. Nobs01 (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an issue for WP:ELNO, not AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's an issue for Wikipedia's reputation. Nobs01 (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Nobs01: I can't find that link in the article, can you point to where it's being linked to please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's been cleaned up now, but there remains a reference in the second paragraph of a "website was set up anonymously for the purpose of collecting donations". Because of the ambiguity of the title, this article should clearly identify the massacre as a meme, or be deleted. It adds to the public being defrauded. Nobs01 (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, OK. I checked back until 1 March before asking the question above, so I guess it was removed before then. Why not rework/remove the sentence to address the issue you're raising here? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        If you remove it, it will certainly get restored. That is not a "fraudulent fundraising website", because it does not take any money. If you click on the "donate" link, it takes you to what is clearly identified as the actual ACLU website. And (after you laugh to see where it took you), you then have the choice whether or not to make a donation to the ACLU. The text makes that very clear: "A website was set up anonymously for the purpose of collecting donations for victims of the imaginary massacre; the donation link on the website goes to the ACLU's donation page." --MelanieN (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @MelanieN: It's not so clear in the article lead, though. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, I can't see what merits "essentially an attack page aimed at the Trump administration... this article is set up in a satirical way..." Even if that were the case, that would be a fixable issue, but it seems to me to be a misrepresentation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a problem with that. Editors have proposed retitling, clarifications, merges, etc., but have met resistance. It seems there's a desire keep it as an attack page without clearly labeling it as an internet meme for readers. Nobs01 (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't think, in its current state, "attack page" is an accurate description of this article. A lot of things related to Trump and U.S. politics are going to be drama and POV magnets. We'll just have to muddle through as best we can. As I've stated, I think it's notable, regardless of the article's problems ~~, but that's all I'll say~~. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In it's current state, it was created to make Kellyanne Conway look like an idiot - a violation of BLP. It makes little or no effort to acknowledge human foibles and vulnerabilities, and piles on derision by extrapolating inventions out of a fair reading of context. Nobs01 (talk)

"It makes little or no effort to acknowledge human foibles and vulnerabilities" is one of the most bizarre arguments I've read at Afd in some time. I'm not quite sure what you expect an encyclopedia article to do in cases like this, other than attempt to be neutral. The more I read these objections, they more they seem to me to devolve into WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. I see your concerns stated and restated at Talk:Bowling_Green_massacre#This_article_is_little_more_than_an_attack_on_a_living_person but we're not here to absolve Ms. Conway -- or anyone for that matter. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP is pretty clear - to err on the side of caution. This article makes no effort to go into the facts of the Bowling Green terrorists' case and is solely focused on ridicule of one living human being. Nobs01 (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLP is not about protecting a living human being's feelings. It's about ensuring content is well backed up by reliable sources so that there's very little if any chance the Wikipedia would be engaging in libel. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC

BLP is very clear in its intent in protecting reputation from innuendo. And nowhere in Kellyanne Conway's words can anyone prove Kellyanne Conway ever said an event took place. The plot was always on the drawing board. The notion she alleged an event occurred is an extrapolation cut from whole cloth. Conway clarified her statement which has been ignored by a viral meme with no boring on the facts of the case of the Bowling Green terrorists. Nobs01 (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you're here to protect a subject, and that's not what we're here for. We should be leaving our politics at the door. Wikipedia only reflects/describes based on RS. We didn't decide to make this notable. It just is. A meme/zeitgeist doesn't care about anyone's reputation, and we are not protectors of reputations. At any rate, if BLP is "very clear", you will show us the specific policy text that underlines your opinion. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Ec x3) Nobs01, give it up. There is no way that her words - "the masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre of taking innocent soldiers' lives away", "the masterminds behind the Bowling Green attack on our brave soldiers" - can be interpreted in any other way but as describing an actual massacre/attack that actually took place. The feeble claim that she wasn't REALLY talking about an actual incident is not credible. She said it; if it made her look stupid that is her fault, not Wikipedia's. We report on what people do (if it is notable enough); we do not censor or explain away the facts to keep from hurting their feelings. And BTW we do report on her followup explanation in the article, as has been pointed out to you more than once, so please stop claiming her clarification was "ignored". --MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Melanie: (1) Bowling Green attack on our brave soldiers did occur - that's what the Bowling Green terrorists were convicted of - purchase and shipment of contraband to Iraq to be used in terrorist activities against American soldiers. That is an attack. (2) masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre of taking innocent soldiers lives refers to a plot, a future event. It is an extrapolation to say it is exclusively past tense, and a violation of BLP where we're supposed to give the benefit of the doubt. Nobs01 (talk) 09:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An attack requires an attack. An aborted or failed attempt at an attack is not an attack. "Massacre" means it happened; you can't have an intended massacre that didn't succeed. This is tortured logic. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CNN calls it an attack; so does Politfact, the Washington Post, and the Department of Justice press release. They were convicted of conspiracy and helping al Qaeda carry out attacks.

Under the tortured logic of those wanting to keep this title, the plot to kill Castro ought to be titled, "The assassination of Castro" rather than "Operation Mongoose". Nobs01 (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody ever claimed the CIA successfully assassinated Castro. CNN says "They were also convicted of helping al Qaeda carry out attacks on American troops in Iraq. In fact, the two men never plotted any attacks inside the United States, according to the head of the Justice Department's National Security Division at the time." – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability of a subject depends on coverage in multiple WP:RS. Based on the coverage, this is something highly notable. If there are incidents/misstatements/whatever with such wide coverage, one should create pages about them as well. My very best wishes (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability of the subject is an internet meme, not what is represented in the title. Nobs01 (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hence it is notable. This could be fixed in text, but I do not think this is just a meme. My very best wishes (talk) 05:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's like Bill Clinton's haircut and other things that create inordinate press coverage in the USA, but are forgotten by most sentient beings in 10 years. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a garbage disposal unit.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We do not know the future. This is notable and therefore deserves a page right now. As about the haircut, I have no idea what you are talking about. How this is relevant to the subject of this page? My very best wishes (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The haircut is relevant. Yes, you don't know about it, and that's my point. It was big news at the time, but now you would wonder why. Wikipedia is not news.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable, with widespread significant coverage in the media. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MelanieN. Sustained coverage of this zeitgeist makes this reasonably clear. Objectivity about what is happening isn't an attack. Also, I don't know why a Wikipedian would be concerned that a politician is being attacked from our application of policy. It cuts all ways. We're supposed to leave our politics at the door. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia is not a forum to make political points.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and we do not remove stuff because politicians won't like it. This is a highly notable topic that attracted significant in-depth media attention around the world. No credible reason has even been advanced for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 06:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is WP:FART. We do not create an article every time Donald Trump has a bad hair day.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice essay! It tells "not every fart is notable". Yes, sure. However, that fart is notable, at least according to the coverage in WP:RS we have today. My very best wishes (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to be a POINTy continuation of kvetching on the article's talk page. Passes GNG and LASTING. Hoping someone SNOW closes this soon. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lately every time Kellyanne is mentioned in the press, for what ever reason, her Boston Green error is mentioned. I'm sure she is still uncomfortable that it is brought up constantly. But the important point, for WP, its editors and the existence of this article, is that an explanation of the facts surrounding the incident are an obligation to our future readers as they search for information. Buster Seven Talk 22:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close AfD per WP:SNOW. VQuakr (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - how else can the term and the incident's implications be understood? The article may be a little lengthy, but at the same time it is exemplary for other phenomena in this administration which the U.S. citizens and the rest of world have to deal with. -- Kku (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability demonstrated by sources. Everyking (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Someone close this garbage pointy poor attempt to push a POV. TimothyJosephWood 18:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there has been a sufficient demonstration of notability. Lepricavark (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ongoing coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There has been ongoing coverage for over a month in reliable sources. It's clearly notable. Smartyllama (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Muboshgu. Can we SNOW this yet? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:00, 21 March 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) 00:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Bloxz[edit]

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

PROD removed by IP without explanation as it still fails GNG and BIO and a Google search shows nothing meaningful to add reliable sources. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 21:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 21:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG and BIO. TheDragonFire (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total blank on a news search. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable cyclist.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:41, 24 March 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) 00:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Ealy Brothers[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Contested prod. One of a number of wrestling articles copied across from Wikia by User:Rickyc123. Schwede 66 19:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - copyright issues and notabilty issues Nickag989^talk 21:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyvios and article is WP:TOOSOON. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG MPJ-DK 10:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find reliable sources.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's fundamental disagreement here as to whether this is an appropriate article subject and if enough reference material exists to sustain it. That's the critical question, and a consensus hasn't been reached here. There's also substantial disagreement about the proper scope of the article (pun not intended). If some of that can be discussed, it might be possible to have a future discussion that reaches a clear consensus as to what to do here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Galilean compound microscope[edit]

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

Failed to find any reliable reference that states the notability of this device.Was de-prodded.This article was created along with several others in a spate of cataloging whatever Museo Galileo had, by a resident Wikipedian. Winged Blades^Godric 11:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The instrument is notable, being covered in sources such as The Lying Stones of Marrakech, Galileo's Muse and The Amoeba in the Room. Andrew D. (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--Here is a summary of my observation of your sources--

The book in the 1st link states that he build the first usable microscope and merely gives a description of the fine observation of bees--all in less than a single page!
The book in the 2nd link states that--there is very little documentation for his micro-telescope and that there was a complete lack of public enthusiasm about his microscope.In a book that specifically covers Galileo, if you feel that points to notability, well our definitions of the word vary.
The 3rd book states he discovered microscope(the details of the microscope is covered in less than half-a-page!) and in 2-3 pages goes on to describe how the bee's incident influenced the-the Pope.Winged Blades^Godric 12:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--And may Andrew Davidson state what extra encyclopaedic info this article/your sources add to except what is already in the 2nd paragraph at Galileo_Galilei#Engineering.Winged Blades^Godric 12:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winged Blades of Godric should please familiarise themselves with WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE, WP:BLUDGEON and WP:CANVASSING. As this still seems to be an absurd nomination of a significant artifact in scientific history which is the subject of significant coverage, my !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Andrew Davidson. Historical artifact that has received sufficient coverage. Lepricavark (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC) Changed from Keep to Weak Keep, see below. Lepricavark (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm withholding my recommendation for now, but I heavily lean towards delete for several reasons. One, Galileo does not appear to be the first ever inventor of the compound microscope. Two, there's no assertion that even if this were his invention, that this particular scope was the first, which might make this microscope notable. Three, Galileo constructed several microscopes. How is this microscope notable as opposed to any other microscope he owned or made? Galileo used his microscopes as tools, and occasionally as gifts. Michelangelo was of course every bit as gifted in his own way as Galileo was in his. If we had a paint brush of his, it'd be in a museum somewhere. Even if we knew it was used on the Sistine Chapel, we would not have an article about the paint brush, as it is not independently notable of its subject (either the chapel or the artist). It's a tool, nothing more. This microscope was a Galilean tool, nothing more. Unless a direct connection can be made that this microscope (of the many he owned/made) was somehow fundamental to the furtherance of science that it sets it apart from all other scopes he used, then there's nothing to go on. Is it real? Yep. Was it Galileo's? Yep. Did he use it? Yep. None of these things make it notable, least of all by association. Convince me as to why this scope is so important? None of the links Andrew provides specifically identifies THIS microscope, nor even the design of this scope in particular as being noteworthy. We simply don't know. How many footballs has Peyton Manning thrown? Pick any random football he threw. How is that football notable? We could certainly come up with an article titled "Peyton Manning's football", and even well source it to the same standards being suggested here...and have an article about a completely non-notable football. We need more to sink our teeth into here. How is THIS microscope notable? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: @Lepricavark: I'm hoping for some feedback to the above here? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got some compelling points, but the counterpoints would be that the sourcing does exist and that I'm not sure I would treat Peyton Manning the same as Galileo. I'm not sure if that satisfactorily addresses your objections, and I'm not going to be overly dogmatic about the result of this AfD. Lepricavark (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lepricavark: Sourcing for what though? How do you know the sourcing is referring to this microscope? To continue the analogy, how do you know this football is the one Peyton threw to break the touchdown record, and not just "a" football? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'm not really buying the Peyton Manning analogy. That being said, upon further review those sources are rather weak. I've downgraded to a weak keep for the time being. Lepricavark (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, insert any analogy where there is one of many and we're singling out one without connected sources. If we can't show that these sources (which as you say are weak) are not connected to this particular object, they are worthless. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have plenty of articles about individual artifacts which are held in museums or the like. Examples include Einstein's blackboard and Tutankhamun's meteoric iron dagger blade. I myself have created such pages; for example, see the Ring of Silvianus. Andrew D. (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Those are about individual objects with sources directly tied to those objects. We don't have that in this case. In this case, we have a microscope. It's one of many microscopes Galileo had. We don't know what he used this microscope for. In fact, he might have made it and never used it. We've no idea if this particular microscope has any connection to any fame whatsoever. All we have is that this is a microscope owned by Galileo. That's. None of the sources assert anything that supports THIS microscope being famous for any reason whatsoever. Please, dispute this if you can. I'm not seeing it. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ - This article is about a museum holding, not an invention or a scientific advance. The material in this article could be merged to Giuseppe Campani#Instruments. There is no evidence that this particular museum holding was the one used in any particular Galilean examination or discovery. An article about Galileo and microscopes would clearly be notable (the word microscope was coined by Faber to describe Galileo's occhiolino, after all) but that isn't what this article is. An article about Campani's microscopes could be spun off of the Campani article if enough material was added to warrant it, but again, that is not what this is. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger is not possible if we delete the page. Please see WP:MAD which explains the requirement to preserve the page for attribution. See also alternatives to deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! My !vote is for delete not merge, I don't see the need for a redirect and I don't think the material in the article belongs in the Campani article except as a passing mention. I was merely stating a possibility if the article's creator was looking to put their energies into improving wikipedia's coverage of the microscopes used in the Galileo's era. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~KeepRedirect~~: using Andrew Davidson's sources, we should cover not only this instrument but all Galileo's compound microscopes here, as it is Galileo's innovation, discoveries and observations that are of most interest, along obviously with the instruments that he used. However, the sources are very thin (not substantial coverage, and the instrument isn't necessarily his invention, so a redirect to existing coverage is all we need here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep: ~~Additional to Smmurphy's comment, the bigger issue is that the entire article is ripped directly from the Galileo Museum's site -- and that source page bears no Copyleft statement.~~ --pmj (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's covered on the article's talk page
The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from Museo Galileo. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by OTRS volunteers, under ticket number 2016062110008037.

The institution is Italian and so I suppose the WiR is too. As they may not have good English, they may have decided that reusing the museum's English translation was an efficient way of starting an entry here and that seems quite legitimate per WP:BOLD and WP:BURO. The article can obviously be improved further and that's done by editing, not deletion, per WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew D. (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation (I missed Winged_Blades_of_Godric's initial comment about this, which is in small text). That makes the article a lot more credible, and as Chiswick Chap mentioned it may attract expansion relating to Galilean compound microscopes in general. Changed vote accordingly. --pmj (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like the consensus may be that this article should be about Galilean compound microscopes in general, is that correct? Does anyone have any problem with the reworking of this page with that more general focus, with the museum entry currently discussed as an example? Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my !vote above and added a context section to the page. I'm still skeptical that the original article satisfied notability, but I do think that a more general article could, and the material I've added is a suggestion what such an article could say. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Giuseppe Campani#Instruments. The microscope in question is in the Museo Galileo, but their page makes clear that Galileo did not make it. It's just a microscope from Galileo's time. I don't see how it can possibly be independently notable. -- 120.17.89.101 (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep historical device of significance even if it's not actually Galileo's. The article is well sourced. No reason to delete.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I can find no secondary sources discussing the specific object which is the subject of this article. -- 120.17.236.252 (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The article says it is a "very important instrument" and formerly attributed to Galileo. Certainly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Optical_microscope#Invention where it is already covered. For goodness sake, this is the height of barrel scraping.

WP:OR and problematic assumptions. There is absolutely no proof that this specimen is the original microscope. The coverage which exists talk about microscopes in general, not about this particular specimen.
The Lying Stones of Marrakech and The Amoeba in the Room are about microscopes in general. They very briefly touch upon Galileo's claim as an inventor. It is obvious that the history of microscopes is what is notable here.
Galileo's Muse is about inventions by Galileo. Despite this, the writeup is very brief. None of this is significant coverage. If we go by WP:WHYN, there is clearly not enough sources for us to be able to write a proper article.
I am clearly against merging any information as the information in the article is not useful. It leaves a messy attribution redirect behind.
Given a choice I will go with either a redirect or a delete. (There can also be multiple targets for the redirect here, so I am not opposed to deletion)

Honestly, just redirect or delete this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, we're getting into a tangle here. We don't know if this is Galileo's; it's not clear what he actually did; and the thin source material is already covered. The topic exists but is barely notable; let's redirect. I'm changing my !vote above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Object has devolved into an old microscope that someone famous might have used. Doesn't seem notable enough to stand on its own. If we had a picture it might be a nice illustration for one of the above suggested merge/redirect targets.Glendoremus (talk) 04:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just boldly moved the article to new title Galileo and compound microscopes, and modified it, with hope to break the deadlock of this AFD. It is allowable, though not usually recommended, to move an article while an AFD is going on. Here the AFD discussion has gone on long enough, with enough participants, to establish:

there was some confusion about copyvio possibility, overcome by report of OTRS permission provided by the museum involved
a fairly general sense of dislike for the narrowly focused topic of one example microscope that was once thought to be Galileo's but was more likely built by someone else, and is one artifact in the museum
some consensus that a broader topic article would be fine, and that the specific artifact can obviously be covered as an example. Editor User:Smmurphy developed the article with a "Context" section towards expanding it in that way.

I think it will not be confusing to anyone to follow that the article has just been moved to a broader topic title. It is now possible to settle this by ratifying that an expanded topic is okay by the great majority of participants here. This avoids a needlessly punitive potential outcome of deletion, which would be insulting IMO to the museum/contributors. --do ncr am 05:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I have written more below) The context which Smmurphy developed is already covered in the history of the microscope. We do not have any content about specific items, unless these items were independently notable. And the idea that deletion is a "needlessly punitive outcome" and an "insulting to the museum/contributors" is something which I very strongly disagree with. If the museum genuinely wants to support open information, they would understand our guidelines. If they do not know our guidelines, it is our duty to explain to them. And more importantly, many of us here are not arguing for a deletion but rather for a redirect or a selective merge. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although at broader topic "Galileo and compound microscopes" or another broad title which may be determined by editors participating usual editing practices, e.g. possibly a Requested Move at the article Talk page. --do ncr am 05:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now it's not about a particular microscope but rather about Galileo's contributions to the instrument. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under new title, per my comments above. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am sorry to say, but I have reverted the move and I am not happy with the way the article is now. While Doncram's contributions are in good faith, the topic of "Galideo and compound microscope" is not notable in itself. It is the history of microscope which is notable and this content needs to be covered there in context. (Which is exactly why I asked for a redirect). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To avoid confusion, I'm striking my !vote again. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now this maybe is getting confusing. Thank you Lemongirl942 for leaving the text of the "Galileo and compound microscope" in place at least (though I don't think your move helped). To any closer, I think Smmurphy and User:Clarityfiend and I all prefer for "Keep" but at a different title than "Galilean compound microscope". :) Or, User:Smmurphy, please do clarify if you no longer have a "!Vote" to make.
  - User:Lemongirl942, further above, stated their preference for "Redirect" to Optical microscope#Invention. Frankly I think there is material in the article now different than information there (e.g. this article, with reference, states Galileo's design was 2 concave lenses, vs there says Galileo's was one convex and one concave lens). And there is the example microscope. Lemongirl942, is it your wish to simply delete everything here now (by redirecting) or would you wish for anything to be merged (in which case your !Vote should be revised)? If that suggested target were in fact to be expanded, including working in mention of the example microscope at Museo Galilei and incorporating some of the OTRS-contributed text, I would not object greatly to an outcome of "Merger" for this AFD. If the point is just to delete by "Redirect", well, that seems unnecessary and I don't like it. :( --doncram 17:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did not initially think that the particular microscope that was the subject of the original article has multiple sources that describe it, and for that reason, my original !vote was for weak delete. However, that article seems to me to follow policies on WP:Verifiability and WP:No Original Research, and one reason I !voted was that I was !voting at and cleaning a number of articles created by User:Archeologo (Museo Galileo), and I felt it was best to be on the record for as many of the related AfDs that I found and felt comfortable commenting at. As the article could be written without violating V and NOR, I was on the fence between no !vote and a weak vote, and I was happy for the opportunity to strike my first !vote. Regarding the present article, I thought a consensus was building for an action like doncram's move, and I added a context section to the article to suggest a pathway for such a move. I think a page discussing how Galileo helped popularize the instrument, the role of Galileo's technical ability in its early development, how his actions placed himself at the center of its development, the politics of his actions, etc. would make a suitable contribution to the encyclopedia independent of the more general article on the Optical microscope which has an invention section, and I !voted keep for the article at the new title. In my opinion, there is now at least three discussions going on here. First, the original AfD, for which I do not have strong feelings for keep or delete; second whether an article on Galileo's role in the early microscope would make a suitable one for our project, doncram is right that I think so; and third, whether this article should be retitled and reframed as doncram has done. On this third question, I think it would be the best outcome if such a retitling were done, as it seems like an appropriate outcome for the good faith contribution of Archeologo, whose work at wikipedia seems to me to be underappreciated. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:54, 20 March 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) 00:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cacau Colucci[edit]

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

Non notable reality program contestant. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources do not indicate her modeling career makes her notable, and that is the only thing that might.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough external sources. Unlikely there are enough that could be added. South Nashua (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:NACTOR. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:55, 24 March 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) 00:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Braddy[edit]

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

Spammy, non notable. Nice use of reputable sources that dont mention to subject at all to make the article look notable when they aren't Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. Take away the bogus citations and the Page 3-style pictorials and there remains only one non-trivial article from an online magazine of unknown reliability. Independent searches for sources yield more photos, not significant coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability and hasn't won any significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:NACTOR.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:59, 24 March 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) J 947 21:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Petals on the Wind (film)[edit]

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

A made-for-TV movie shown on the Lifetime channel which does not appear to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (films) Edison (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per production coverage by TheWrap here and here. Also authoritative reviews from The A.V. Club and Variety. Edison, my initial approach for checking a film's notability is to go to the IMDb page and to check the NewsDesk, External Sites, and External Reviews links. That's where I found these. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Meh. .TheWrap seems dubious as a reliable source. The AVClub is far from a reliable source. Maybe Variety reviews would qualify. Which of the following from the guideline cited apply?

"The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.[2] The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.[3] The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.[4] The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program." Edison (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Edison: These are guidelines from WP:NF, which are alternatives to WP:GNG (which I am referencing here). Variety and The AV Club are Top Critics at Rotten Tomatoes. Plus, production coverage is not limited to TheWrap (which I've seen as acceptable); there is similar coverage from Variety like here, here, and here. There is similar coverage under The Hollywood Reporter here, here, and here. Also found this from TV Guide. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The AV Club is considered to be a RS on here, especially for its reviews of films, books, and games. I've used it pretty often and I've seen them used to help save articles at AfD before. In any case, I found a review (of sorts) from Entertainment Weekly, which I put in the lead since I didn't quite know how to cite it given its layout, plus the Variety review and one from CSM. I'm still looking and I'll add more to the article as I find it, but there's enough overall to justify it passing NFILM. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability has been shown. The nomination statement makes it seem like being a Lifetime movie would be a deterrent to notability. In reality, I think being made for a major television network helps it get coverage. SL93 (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article does seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:NFILM. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:02, 24 March 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) 00:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Layali El Bidh[edit]

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

WP:NOT#DICTIONARY applies here. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTADICTIONARY. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 17:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with NOTADICTIONARY. No potential to expand beyond the two sentences it is now. Gab4gab (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTDICTIONARY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nom.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:03, 24 March 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) 00:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Rozenblatt[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. All mentions of this person in reliable, independent sources refer to them as part of a band. There is no coverage about this individual person exclusively - a person is not notable because of the people they work with. Individual band members require coverage that is exclusively about them as an individual, if there is to be an article about them on Wikipedia. The article attempts to inherit notability in a number of ways, but none of them hold up to any scrutiny. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC and no additional sources have been found. Article created and updated by multiple sockpuppets. Scr★pIron^IV 20:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:NMUSIC. Fails WP:GNG. Despite searches, I cannot find anything about this subject singly. The band is another story, but of course notability is not inherited. Antonioatrylia (talk) 07:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable musician.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Gab4gab (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Robin Crusoe[edit]

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

Film article with no references, external links lead to brief synopsis and less. Imdb had a link to this unreliable source review. Searches lead to lots of books with this film in a list or short mentions naming the star Amanda Blake. No significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:NFILM. Gab4gab (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per improvements by Savolya Gab4gab (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding references to the movie. Don't delete it. Savolya (talk) 11:49, 18 March 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tarvo Merkällinen[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kleuske (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree, finding no sources to substantiate GNG.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - not one of the provided sources are RS.198.58.162.200 (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has no WP:RS to substantiate any claim to notability....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:20, 21 March 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) 00:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raise Data Recovery[edit]

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

Previous version was deleted A7/G11. This version is, to the best of my recollection, an identical recreation. Barring Adam9007's removal of the list of different versions, it still is. WP:ADVERT of a non-notable product created by an WP:SPA sock of another SPA. Cabayi (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I previously listed this for speedy deletion with an incorrect code (although it had already been deleted under A7 previously). This is just using Wikipedia for promotion of a non-notable piece of software. There is nothing in the article that even tries to establish WP:GNG. Lithopsian (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article describing a software product. The brief Softpedia review referenced in the article establishes existence but is insufficient for notability, and my searches are finding nothing better. Fails WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is nothing to suggest this is anything more than an attempt to use Wikipedia for advertising. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:07, 24 March 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) 00:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa de Marco[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. No independent sources to be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obvious lack of sources to establish notability. I'd almost say it's CSD-worthy. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 01:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The two references now in the article are written by the artist herself. My search for sources found no evidence that she meets our notability guideline for artists. There is a cardiac surgeon with the same name at the University of California - San Francisco who may be notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete nary a source to be found. Entirely non-notable.198.58.162.200 (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search for sources turns up nothing relevant, as others have said. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps it's WP:TOOSOON, but the sources at this point in her career are just not there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:06, 24 March 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. Wizardman 13:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Osamu Higashio[edit]

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

Unsourced WP: BLP. Not eligible for WP: BLPROD due to the "External links" section containing a single link (to a one-man website with no editorial oversight); attempted regular WP: PROD which was contested. Martin IIIa (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a case where I daresay WP:COMMONSENSE applies. Yes, the article is in need of improvement and there is currently only an external link to a website. He clearly meets WP:NBASE as a Japanese pro player. He was apparently twice the league MVP. Keep and tag for improvement or better yet -- add reliable sources yourself. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The external links section also contains a link to baseball reference, in addition to the one you mentioned. He is in the Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame for pete's sake.... clearly this guy is notable. Spanneraol (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue there might be that the other one doesn't seem to work. But again, WP:PRESERVE applies. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played in NPB, meaning he passes WP:NSPORTS. Member of the Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame, almost surely meets WP:GNG, but how good are we all with Japanese language sources, especially ones dating back to the late 1960s, that might not be online? Page needs improvement, not deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously, but, on a side note, why is the color scheme for the Japanese Hall of Fame red, white and blue? Is there a more Japanese appropriate color scheme we should be using? Kinston eagle (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable, as plainly demonstrated above. Lepricavark (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a straight-up WP:NBASE pass. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:28, 18 March 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) 00:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Gemini and Flowers Mysteries[edit]

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

A crime novel series with no indication it is notable. Does not meet WP:BOOKCRIT ~ GB fan 13:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was sorry to see that this page might be deleted. The series is popular with readers around the world, even if the sales are small. The author uses self-publication through create space and Kindle Direct Publishing as a way to getting his books into the public domain, not out of vanity but because he became frustrated with the almost impossible task of finding an agent and traditional publisher. As do many indie authors. Such people are writers, even if their books struggle to get accepted by mainstream publishers. The readers think they have merit, as they come back, year after year, to buy the next one in the series as and when it is available. Please leave the page up. Gurujonsweden (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)gurujonsweden — Gurujonsweden (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see a single book review or other news article about these books or the author. Does not meet notability standards.Glendoremus (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little confused by the feedback that these books lack merit or haven’t been ‘officially’ reviewed. Is it Wikipedia’s role to assess and judge things that exist or it is to provide information about things that exist? These books exist, are bought by hundreds of people and read by thousands through Kindle’s lending scheme. Purchasers, on the Amazon pages where they are sold, with mainly very positive feedback, have reviewed the books. The books are available for sale through a website, have been nominated for Lambda Literary Awards (In Real Life was a finalist in 2014 in the Gay Mystery Novel section) and are loved by their readers. Just because Wikipedia’s controllers haven’t heard of them is beside the point. As a result of someone uploading this page, now you have! Indie authors have enough trouble trying to get published without the world’s biggest encyclopaedia basically denying their existence through some preordained judgement process. Leave the page up, please. Gurujonsweden (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)gurujonsweden[reply]

Comment: I'm all too aware that indie authors have a hard time receiving the necessary coverage to pass NBOOK - there are a good many books and authors that I would love to add to Wikipedia but cannot because they just don't have the coverage in independent and reliable sources like newspaper articles or reviews. Some of these books are very popular and have received good fan reception, however being popular is not something that gives notability. (WP:ITSPOPULAR) It can make it more likely that there will be coverage, but it's not a guarantee. Nor is the book's existence a sign of notability, as existing does not make something inherently notable. (WP:ITEXISTS) Winning a LLA would help show notability, but this only gives notability if the book wins and even then it would likely only give partial notability. The awards that give absolute notability (ie, that it would pass NBOOK on that award alone) are very few and far between and I'd say that less than 1% of any award given in any category (films, books, science, humanitarian awards, sports, etc) would give that level of notability. I'll look to see what I can find, but the problem is that most self-published books fail notability guidelines because there are always more self-published books than there are outlets that will write about them and would be considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also have to note that your username is identical to the Twitter handle of the author himself, so I would like to warn you that you do need to disclose any WP:COI that you may have with the article. (I'm concerned that earlier you mentioned "the author" in a way that would suggest that you are not the author.) I've posted a welcome note on your userpage about this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tokyogirl79, Thank you for your feedback and information. It was very helpful indeed and I am sorry if my comments might be seen as a conflict of interest, as I am, indeed, the author of the series. However, I did not put up the G&F page and have no idea who did. I was merely responding to the comments of other Wiki editors. If my non-disclosure weakens my arguments then I am sorry. Thank you for help though; very useful.Gurujonsweden (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)gurujonsweden[reply]

Delete. Other than the LLA nod, there just isn't anything out there for the series. We can't use the nomination towards notability, so that doesn't really leave us with anything other than a piece written on Thrilling Detective, which I'm not entirely sure would be considered a reliable source on here, as Wikipedia's standards can be very strict on what sources can be used. Even if it can be used, it isn't enough on its own to justify inclusion. I feel for the author, I really do, and I wish that we could leave the article up, but the coverage just isn't there and it's not really up to Wikipedia to create the exposure needed to include an article. My recommendation is to really lean on some of the sites out there that can be used as a RS on here, such as The Advocate and The Stranger. It's never as easy as telling someone to write about your work, but sometimes it can work out. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your nice feedback, Tokyogirl79. May I simply add that, after seven books in the series, Wikipedia is hardly being pushed into creating exposure! Your suggestions for 'getting noticed' are fine but, having tried that over the years, it is far easier said than done. As I mentioned before, I don't know who finally put up the page and yes, I was delighted to see it and would be disappointed if it came down again but that is entirely up to all of you at Wikipedia. Of course you must maintain your standards. Gurujonsweden (talk) 08:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)gurujonsweden[reply]

Delete reliable , secondary sources simply not found.( I tried; I felt a kind of bond wiht a writer named Gregory ;-)E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:22, 24 March 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 speedily deleted by Oshwah per CSD G7 (one author who has requested deletion or blanked the page). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Schola[edit]

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

Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And while this is a content issue, surely "essays written by high school students on wide-ranging topics" published online don't constitute an academic journal? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability of any kind. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems unlikely that the journal meets the GNG requirement at this stage. I ask that the article be deleted ASAP. --Thejophiel (talk) 00:08, 18 March 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) J 947 21:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey Backed Free Syrian Army[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such group called the "Turkey-backed Free Syrian Army". There is, however, an alliance of FSA groups backed by Turkey and is the main Syrian rebel group participating in Euphrates Shield. It is called the Hawar Kilis Operations Room. Editor abcdef (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering: why do you start talking about those 'Hawar Kilis Operations Room'? The whole point here is, that no army called 'Turkey-backed Free Syrian Army' or 'Turkish Free Syrian Army' exists. So it is not allowed for a Wiki editor (or a Wiki project) to invent an army under such name and suggest that it exist.

--Corriebertus (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corriebertus, just a suggestion, do a news search (try Thomson Newsroom or factiva... but if you don't have access, try Google news) for "Turkey backed Free Syrian Army" or 'Turkish backed Free Syrian Army' Plenty of articles on it. 'Hawar Kilis Operations Room' seems to be a component of the TFSA but there is very little on it. CheersDeathlibrarian (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The TFSA (or the Turkey Backed Free Syrian Army) is a term used to describe the rebel units allied with Turkey, operating in Operation Euphrates Shield. They are a distinct group from the FSA in that they are (1) paid by Turkey (2) mainly Turkmen and Arabs (3) fight the Kurds and IS, but have had little actual contact with the SAA (which is probably the main group the reguler FSA fights and (4) They get their weapons from Turkey. You could argue that they are a distinct Turkey Proxy. They are definitely *not* the same as the Free Syrian Army, which was largely based in Aleppo, and is now in Idlib and a few other areas (if it exists at all!) Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TFSA or Turkey Backed Free Syrian Army is certainly more used than terms like the "Mare Operations room", and the "Hawar Kilis Operations oom"... these terms aren't generally used, and seem to be specific to certain sub groups. The main term in use by people writing on the conflict for the overall collective of rebels operating in this operation is TFSA, and the media (if you have a look at the articles) uses Turkey Backed Free Syrian Army or something similiar Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways "Turkey Backed Free Syrian Army" is a very strange article name. What about the name "Syrian National Army" as proposed by Turkey?^[1]^[2] Editor abcdef (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article title probably should be "Turkish Free Syrian Army" or "Turkish-Free Syrian Army". Erdogan may have proposed it called "Syrian National Army", but I don't think anyone calls them that?A the moment, most people call them the TFSA, to differentiate from the FSA. If the Turks bring them together, and re-name them all the "Syrian National Army", I guess that's what they should be called at that point. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The supposed ‘Turkey Backed Free Syrian Army’ seems now an invention of one or more Wiki editors. The presented sources seem distorted. The term 'T-b Free Syrian Army' relies on only one ref source: ref 1, RT(5Sep2016) writing: "The Turkey-backed Free Syrian Army has eliminated …". That sentence simply means: the FSA—which we all know of—is being backed by Turkey. There's no ground to suppose/suggest it means to say that there are two FSA's! So: the info can and should simply be placed in article FSA.
ref 2, VOA: 'Who are the Turkey backed Syrian Rebels?' (25Aug2016) bears on 'factions loosely known as Free Syrian Army' (some of them) 'empowered by Turkey', it does not speak of a 'Turkey Backed Free Syrian Army'. Info on such factions should either be recorded in articles on those factions—if we have their names—or simply in article FSA. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Corriebertus- The problem here is, the media hasn't settled on a name for this force - however....There *is* an army in the Euphrates shield area, it is a distinct rebel army that is aligned, has the same goals, and is supported and takes its orders from Turkey, and it is distinct from the Free Syrian Army. I agree, the media doesn't give it a name, but that fact alone doesn't mean the army doesn't exist. There are articles that refer to its existence. Also, it is commonly referred to as the Turkish Free Syrian Army on the Reddit discussion about the Syrian Civil War (check for yourself here https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/) - however that doesn't qualify as a source for wikipedia which is why I hadn't mentioned it - Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, there's no ground (presented) that this TFSA is distinct from the FSA we already have in article Free Syrian Army. The lead of article FSA even explicitly states now that "Turkish intervention in Syria has revived FSA fortunes in Northern Syria, with on-ground support of an organised military backed by Turkish airpower" -- which is not exactly the same but tends towards what article TFSA also seems to assert; we should always allow for different news sources to lay different accents in reporting on the same events. --Corriebertus (talk) 07:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI'd completely disagree with that. TFSA is very different than the FSA, different aims, motivations - TFSA is fundamentally a Turkish proxy. To include them in the same WIKI article is completely wrong. TFSA is attacking the Kurds, at the behest of Turkey, while the FSA attacks Assad, and has been defending their homelands. There are *many* articles and threads on the Syrian Civil War Reddit that support this. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, the page's title is changed into "Turkish Free Syrian Army". This does not change my opinion that the article must be deleted. The existence of an army with this name is total fantasy (thus framing or propaganda) and it is a shame for Wikipedia to promote wishfull thinking/fantasy(/propaganda) into an article. I don't deny that groups (called FSA) are fighting there, but self-proclaiming them as an army with an invented name is very non-wiki. It's quite possible that not all FSA groups have the same motivations, opponents, etc. but we can and should differentiate that in article FSA first. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with you. The fact that people are saying the TFSA article should be combined with the FSA article, is *completely* misrepresentative - they are distinct groups and Wikipedia should reflect that. To gloss over the differences, could arguably see wikipedia promoting a pro Turkish viewpoint - ie that the TFSA is the same as the FSA, whereas in fact, they are largely Turkish proxies, very much aligned with Turkish goals(for instance, attacking the Kurds) rather than FSA goals. As far as I can see, they have been grouped together and are paid and supported by Turkey. I agree the name may be problematical (which I think is half the problem), but the two are distinct groups, and TFSA is what people are using in Reddit. If people can think of a better one, please suggest it. Cheers! Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Death: your army(units) are called 'FSA', yet you claim they are distinct, not part of the 'other' FSA. Can you prove that? It seems to me that you personally perhaps dislike the 'other' (not Turkey-backed) FSA groups and therefore want to dissociate 'your' Turkey-backed groups from the rest of the FSA-titled groups. By the way, what is Reddit? --Corriebertus (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--Corriebertus It's arguable that there actually is *no* FSA, and it's just a loose term assigned as a term of convenience for various militia, and ther is no formal structure which has no concrete existence. In that sense, it's actually hard to dislike or like the FSA, as you could be talking about extreme arab militia, or actual moderates. The moderates in the FSA have long been on the decline, particularly post SAA takeover of Aleppo. Personally, I'm not really a fan of either, I think the group doing the most good in Syria are the Kurdish SDF. The Reddit discusison I posted to w is one of the main areas on the internet where the Syrian civil war is discussed Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect whatever is viable to Hawar Kilis Operations Room and/or Operation Euphrates Shield, as per above. In any event, the name is unwieldy and should - at the very least - be changed to "Turkish Free Syrian Army" or something simpler. GAB^gab 00:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree, as per people's requests, I have now changed the title to "Turkish Free Syrian Army", which is a lot more appropriate than the old title. Should of done that in the first place in retrospect. Hindsight is always 20/20!. Thanks for the input everyone. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As has been noted, there have been moves to call the TFSA the "Syrian National Army" see article:

“6 Factions Constitute the Core of Turkey-Backed Syrian National Army” Asharq Al-Awsat (English Edition) 19 February 2017 Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've just added a number of more articles, I hope this makes the article clearer.Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There needs to be some modifier to the not-yet existing "Syrian National Army" so that it won't be confused with the Syrian Army. The former doesn't really exist yet as I said. Editor abcdef (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agree....Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I am of the opinion, based on the various sources, that the TFSA is a significantly different group to the FSA, despite the similar name. Also, comment – I have cleaned up the article. RadiculousJ (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As above, TFSA (fundamentally a Turkish aligned proxy force) is a completely different organisation to the FSA. Name is loosely applied to both, but different organisations with different motivations, commands, alignment and support structures Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I am of the opinion, based on the various sources, that the TFSA is a significantly different group to the FSA, despite the similar name. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Syrian groups under Turkish command that recently captured Al-Bab. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As above, TFSA (fundamentally a Turkish aligned proxy force) is a completely different organisation to the FSA. Name is loosely applied to both, but different organisations with different motivations, commands, alignment and support structures Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 11:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Turkish Free Syrian Army isn't a real entity, but some FSA units were fighting in Al Bab campaign. This text can be moved to Turkish intervention article. Kavas (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – These aren't FSA units, they are rebels allied with Turkey/Turkish proxies, they need a separate article from the FSA article. Completely different group to the FSA. Name is loosely applied to both, but different organisations with different motivations, commands, alignment and support structures. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because as above, TFSA (fundamentally a Turkish aligned proxy force) is a completely different organisation to the FSA.FFA P-16 (talk) 10:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- FSA is more than a single entity, but they are some groups who share the same goal of fighting for revolution. So claiming a completely different organisation isn't justified. Some of FSA units in ES are now returned to Idlib to fight against SAA, so they're not completely different from rebels in Idlib (which is described as FSA). In the ground, these groups can switch from fighting in Idlib or in Al Bab. Finally, Idlib based FSA is also Turkish backed. Kavas (talk) 09:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think we have enough for an article, regardless of whether TFSA is an incorporated body with a membership roster, or just a loose term being thrown around for some rebel bands vaguely aligned with Turkey somehow. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:13, 23 March 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) 00:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pens (game)[edit]

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

Appears to be identical to the card game Spoons, but played with pens in place of spoons, perhaps as a house rule. I can't find any sources that refer to the game by this name. McGeddon (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Like the nominator, I have also been unable to find any sources that refer to this supposed game, nor even any sources that mention it as a variation of Spoons. I largely suspect that this was WP:MADEUP. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 11:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete as not meeting WP:N and appearing to be made up. Hobit (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this game is mentioned as a variation of spoons here [3]. It certainly lacks the notability to warrant a separate article. At best this should be merged into Spoons. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should specify that the variation I'm referring to here is reducing deck size, not using pens rather than spoons. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find reliable sources.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:08, 24 March 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) 00:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Republic Day Parade[edit]

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

I don't think a separate article is required for RD Parade this year. Already there is an article titled Republic Day (India) that has all the information about how it is done. The infobox used is also same. My point is that there is no separate distinction for this. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ChunnuBhai (talk) 07:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The 2017 Republic Day Parade meets WP:GNG, thus qualifying for a standalone article. This also has potential to be merged somewhere, which could be discussed on an article talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the case. Republic Day is generalized over years, not an article for specific year is required. Because most of the information presented is part of the original. Just a section about 2017 in the parent article would do. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Per nom.I think Northamerica1000's argument do not stand here maybe due to unfamiliarity with the topic.2017 RD parade was not much special from 2016's just as 2016's was not unique from 2015's.Winged Blades^Godric 14:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 11:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Nom. After reading NorthAmerica's comment, I looked at both articles (India Day and this article on the 2017 parade) The India Day article covers the guest of honor every year, so we don't need a separate article to cover that. The 2017 article has a long list of who marched, which is not encyclopedic. It also has a section on who was given a Padma Award, but each category of this award already has its own page, they are merely award at or during the parade (on that magnificent Boulevard that built under the British, no country in the world can match the grandeur of that parade route). Point is, this article is a pointless POVFORK, written in good faith. This is among the world's grandest annual parades, but there is nothing particular about 2017.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:05, 24 March 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usman W. Chohan[edit]

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

An ostensibly impressive list of references -- but there appears to be *nothing* to support notability -- i.e., no secondary sources written *about* the subject. He certainly doesn't meet WP:PROF -- he is currently doing his PhD: [4]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomoskedasticity has made an incorrect assessment because the subject has numerous secondary sources; see the following four examples:

(1) The Parliament of Canada is a secondary source that has cited the subject in national law
(2) The University of New South Wales piece detailing impact of the subject is written by a secondary source, Myles Gough.
(3) The International Political Science Association's World Congress is a secondary source. Please also note that doing a PhD does not make a notable subject less notable.
(4) A Melbourne University Press published book of 50 Top Thinkers that includes the subject as one of its 50 thinkers is evidently a secondary source.
Therefore, the argument that the subject is not evidenced by secondary sources is demonstrably incorrect. --عثمان وقاص چوہان 21:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC) User:Uchohan

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (provisional) Sources seem too implausible. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- Is the official website of the Parliament of Canada implausible? --عثمان وقاص چوہان 21:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC) User:Uchohan

I can't see his name there. Do you have any connection with the subject of the BLP? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Yes you can see his name right there. It is cited twice in the reading list on that page. Please be more attentive to the details before you declare sources such as a country's legislature "implausible", this is the parliament of Canada. --عثمان وقاص چوہان 09:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC) User:Uchohan

Even so -- it is indeed a WP:PRIMARY source -- as are virtually all the others. Sources written by you do nothing to support a claim to notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SECONDARY guidelines require "a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere" - such as this analysis of impact on Australian laws by the subject from a WP:SECONDARY source. Nomoskedasticity is advised to look up in the "Find Sources" at the top of this page: (1) News, (2) Books, and (3) Scholar to get an idea of the subject's notability. --عثمان وقاص چوہان 10:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC) User:Uchohan

Keep. Notability is evident in the following examples of extensive and externally authenticable sources:

1A - Citation by the PARLIAMENT OF CANADA subject has been cited in a legislative motion in the Parliament of Canada.

1B - World Economic Forum. The World Economic Forum is an international, notable body that provides a biography of the subject

2A - International Journal of Public Administration - Article The IJPA is a peer-reviewed, leading journal in the field of Public Administration. Impartial + external representation of the subject's notability.

2B - Parliamentary Affairs Journal Parliamentary Affairs is a peer-reviewed, leading journal in the field of Legislative Studies. Impartial representation of the subject's notability.

3 - Australia's 50 Top Thinkers, the Conversation Yearbook Book is published by Melbourne University Press. This is a published book that recognises 50 Australian Thinkers including the subject. (see also: [5] )

4 - International Conference: World Congress of Political Science The conference has several thousand attendees and is the most important venue for political science in academia. The subject is clearly notable when their work is cited in a large international venue.

5 - Tax and Transfer Policy Institute: Think Tank Profile in respected Fiscal Policy Think Tank is an external indication of the notability of the subject.

Other examples are also easily available, but these examples are more than sufficient to demonstrate the following point. The subject is notable, the referencing of their notability is extensive and externally authenticable (Parliament of Canada, leading peer-reviewed journals, international conferences, The World Economic Forum, a book published by Melbourne University Press, international think-tanks). Therefore, article is not a reasonable candidate for deletion. --عثمان وقاص چوہان 10:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC) User:Uchohan

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If this gent fails the notability tests (which I doubt) then the notability tests are just plain wrong. Andrewa (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then where are the WP:SECONDARY sources? A !vote that simply disagrees with the notability policies won't carry much (if any) weight... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomoskedasticity: Please take the time to look at the sources listed above. Just two examples will suffice: The Parliament of Canada can not possibly be a primary source; and nor can the International Political Science Association's World Congress of Political Science possibly be a primary source --عثمان وقاص چوہان 20:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC) User:Uchohan

But in fact they are WP:PRIMARY sources. Please review the definitions in the linked policies before commenting further. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: (1) User:Nomoskedasticity seems to be insisting on just one criteria of notability, but as User:Andrewa correctly points out, there are several criteria of WP:Notability and the subject conforms with these criteria; and (2) Secondary sources include, in line with WP:SECONDARY guidelines, "a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere" - this analysis is but one example of the subject discussing information along precisely those guidelines. --عثمان وقاص چوہان 10:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC) User:Uchohan

Do you have any connection with the subjecyt of the BLP? Xxanthippe (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

You seem to be conceding that the Canadian Parliament site and the WCPS do not meet the WP:SECONDARY requirement -- good. The source from your own university might work -- but it doesn't help that it's a source from your own university. Anyway, if that's all you've got... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research#The more general question that seems very relevant to this. Comments there very welcome. Andrewa (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reboot -- the discussion above is based on some false premises and misunderstandings of policy. The only basis for considering notability here consists of this analysis, a piece published by the university where the subject is doing his PhD, and a collection re-publishing articles that had appeared earlier in The Conversation, selected to represent "Australia's Top 50 Thinkers" of 2016. Everything else is either written by the subject or is a primary source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did a quick search for additional references - which is complicated due to this guy being a writer (so stuff he writes shows up) and translator (including a few books). It does seem he wrote quite a few journal papers ([6]), made quite a few speeches/talks, appeared on TV a few times, and wrote extensively. Considering the amount of "noise" out there at age 30, he probably will be notable at some future point. Hard to ascertain, within all this noise, whether he is notable now.Icewhiz (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 11:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Prolific but the Google scholar link given by Icewhiz (reset to search by citation count [7]) shows too little impact for WP:PROF#C1. And the "50 top thinkers" thing basically means only that one of the papers he wrote was included in an edited volume (not a notable accomplishment). Other than that, I don't see any evidence of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~Neutral (my bad on journalist criteria). He probably failes PROF. But he passes Wikipedia:Notability (journalists) due to his role at The_Conversation_(website) [[8]] + a number of other publications. He might also pass GNG (Hyperpolyglots, Taqanu, Sitarico, general media appearances as an expert (a few TV pieces), and the narrow technical field of "Parliamentary Fiscal Scrutiny") - hard to tell because it hard to find pieces about him between the large bushes of search result weeds (his own writing) - there might be more good sources out there - but they are hard to spot in the large amount of noise (25200 google hits, 4710 google-news hits - which does however contribute to Wikipedia:Notability (journalists)). Icewhiz (talk) 06:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC), modified:15:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those organisations -- Hyperpolyglots, Taqanu, and Sitarico -- are all things he created. He hasn't been selected for honours by someone else -- he's creating organisations (and thus leads them, by default), and there's no way the organisations are notable. I really don't see the case for GNG (okay, I wouldn't, given that I nominated it -- but still...). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's actually a co-founder of Taqanu ([9] is the founder, and I agree is fairly not notable (at least yet), but it isn't a 1 man show). I agree he's engaged in self-promotion and is trying to make "noise" to be notable. He does however write extensively in a number of news outlets, has regular radio spots (in various languages), and a few TV appearances. I think the whole ensemble is a very weak keep (to a large part due to him being a journalist effectively (also!)). And if he is deleted - then it should be with no prejudice for recreation if better sources come up (hard to find due to his own writing - which flood search results) and/or he crosses notability thresholds for other activities - he might be a NOTYET, but he's "close".Icewhiz (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've said he meets WP:Notability (journalists) -- but that of course was a failed proposal, it's not a viable notability standard (and anyway he doesn't meet the criteria specified there). The basic truth here is that virtually nothing has been written about him. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are right - my bad on journalist (was searching to see if there was criteria for journo- and didn't notice the fail). At the very least, he is attempting (with some success - according to google and google-news hits on his rather unique name) to be a high-profile individual with regular media as an "expert" etc.. All these self-created organizations serve a broader function than just his wiki entry (which it seems is also used as part of his self-promotion)... Regarding virtually nothing about him - I'm not so sure - with this guy he's written so much out there, that finding stuff about him within all the results of stuff he's written - is difficult. He might have 5-10 secondary coverage sources - and it would be drowned out in the search results.Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 20 March 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PyMC3[edit]

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

Non-notable. The only reference covering it in any depth was written by the creators of the software. No evidence that any third party has taken such an interest in it. Anyone can upload some math routines to Github and write about them. It needs much more than this for a software package to be notable. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can add more references, if that is needed. Some of them could be:

Scientific publications https://scholar.google.de/scholar?oi=bibs&hl=en&authuser=1&cites=6936955228135731011
Books: https://www.amazon.com/Bayesian-Methods-Hackers-Probabilistic-Addison-Wesley/dp/0133902838 or https://www.packtpub.com/big-data-and-business-intelligence/bayesian-analysis-python
The project is sponsored by NumFocus http://www.numfocus.org/open-source-projects.html
Technical reports http://blog.fastforwardlabs.com/2017/01/11/thomas-wiecki-on-probabilistic-programming-with.html

There is a similar page for a similar software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_(software) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aloctavodia (talk • contribs) 20:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:WHATABOUTX, what other articles there are is irrelevant. It is always the case there are other similar articles, given the size and scope of WP. Each article is to be considered on its own merits, to stop discussions being sidetracked by arguments over other articles.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is also other software based on PyMC3.

Bambi: BAyesian Model-Building Interface (BAMBI) in Python. NiPyMC: Bayesian mixed-effects modeling of fMRI data in Python. gelato: Bayesian Neural Networks with PyMC3 and Lasagne. beat: Bayesian Earthquake Analysis Tool. Edward: A library for probabilistic modeling, inference, and criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aloctavodia (talk • contribs) 20:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

> No evidence that any third party has taken such an interest in it.

Speaking as s statistician who did not write pymc3 and yet uses it, this particular assertion seems questionable - there are many blog posts using it, more than 200 stackoverflow questions about it, hundreds of academic articles written using it, heavy and sustained source code contribution and so on. If it were a university professor, its publication record would be likely above-the-median.

It is, however, used for machine-learning and statistics, which might contribute to the perception that it is obscure amongst people outside those fields. --Livingthingdan (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only primary sources. Clearly fails WP:PRODUCT. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added new sources to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aloctavodia (talk • contribs) 17:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 11:23, 17 March 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) 04:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Chopstars[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Non-notable organization. Trivial mention of "Chopstars" in sources cited. Unable to find reliable secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the issue with these pages? If you google The Chopstars or Chopstars and click news you will find ANY CREDIBLE sources where they are mentioned or the article is about them. They are official South by Southwest artist, OVO Sound DJs and have worked with the director Barry Jenkins on his Moonlight soundtrack does meet wiki standards? Here is some info ^[3]^[4] And DJ Hollygrove was a producer on a Viceland show^[5] User:Ocean03 16:54 (UTC)

References

^ http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/02/turkey-erdogan-promising-a-national-or-a-ghost-army.html
^ http://english.aawsat.com/2017/02/article55367710/6-factions-constitute-core-turkey-backed-syrian-national-army
^ "Moonlight Directs Boost a Chopped and Screwed version Of Its Soundtrack".|accessdate=27 Feb 2017
^ ""Moonlight" Director Barry Jenkins Teams Up With The Chopstars For "Purple Moonlight" Mixtape".|accessdate=27 Feb 2017
^ ""The Black Market With Michael K Williams" The Lean Scene (TV Episode 2016)". Retrieved 22 December 2016.

Comment - Regarding each of the three sources listed above, it's difficult to see how they could contribute to the notability of "The Chopstars".

The first source has one sentence: "'Chopped and screwed' is the name given to the fogged, narcotized sound created by Houston's DJ Screw." That's all. There is nothing to support the notability of an organization called "The Chopstars". Remember, the genre chopped and screwed already has an article.
The second source says four words about The Chopsters: "Houston collective, The Chopstar".
The third source does not even mention "Chopstar". Magnolia677 (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in NPR, Houston Press, Los Angeles Times, and Yahoo Movies fully qualifies as passing WP:GNG. As @Ocean03: says, this was easy to find and suggests a step in WP:BEFORE may have been missed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: Could you please add a link here to the articles you mentioned which could support the notability of an organization called "The Chopstars"? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you should have done this yourself before nominating, or else withdrawn the nomination if you were unwilling to put in the effort. But, hey, I'm generally willing to help another editor out, so here you go: NPR, Houston Press, Los Angeles Times, and Yahoo Movies. That's just in the first page of 2410 Google News results. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Regarding each of the sources you have listed above:

The first is the same source listed far above by User:Ocean03. This source has one sentence: "'Chopped and screwed' is the name given to the fogged, narcotized sound created by Houston's DJ Screw." That's all. There is nothing to support the notability of an organization called "The Chopsters". Remember, the genre chopped and screwed already has an article.
The second source mentions "The Chopstars" a few times, without saying who or what they are. This source does little to support the notability of something called "The Chopstars".
The third source is a dead link.
The fourth source states "to create the mix, the filmmaker worked with OG Ron C and the Chopstars, who gave the tracks their chopped-and-screwed treatment." A one-word mention in one sentence. These sources hardly contribute to the establishment of notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has to be the most picayune and excessively-literal attempt to minimize WP:RS I've seen in AfD for a long time. You dismiss the NPR review because another editor already linked to it, which implies you didn't read it thoroughly the first time. There is literally five paragraphs about this music group and their collaboration with an Oscar-winning filmmaker in the first source alone. I trust the closing admin to read these sources themselves, so I don't feel I need to further dispute your assessments. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eggishorn - Your insults and reference to "WP:BEFORE" are an inappropriate smokescreen to hide your shoddy sources, and any capable closing admin will see this. Please locate some reliable secondary sources to support notability, and stop your incivility and drama. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you think you have a valid user behavior complaint, you know where to go. If you can identify where I talked about you as an editor and not your posts, you know where to find my talk page.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am also concerned about this being a notable 'group'. Inlinetext (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 11:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:26, 20 March 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) 00:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Helal Uddin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG no indepth independent coverage, relies on the same press release. Theroadislong (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom's analysis. The cited sources are not independent of each other. Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Factiva, HighBeam, JSTOR, LexisNexis, Newsbank, and ProQuest found no other material. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete lack of independent sources. Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:11, 24 March 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) 00:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NCDcenter.com[edit]

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

Claims to be the first online Bengali medical encyclopedia, sources don't support this. No indepth coverage from independent sources. Fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete: No evidence to support the claim and notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The three Bengali sources are regurgitations of the same press release. It isn't clear what the other two sources are trying to show. Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Factiva, HighBeam, JSTOR, LexisNexis, Newsbank, and ProQuest found no independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails GNG. Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:09, 24 March 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) 00:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kempirve[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable Indian film: at present, it has not been covered in any reliable English or Kannada sources. All I could find were the film's Facebook page and a few hits in unreliable sites. Note that, apart from one of the film's actors, none of the film's staff or cast (including the director) have Wikipedia articles. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-It is not a notable Indian film yet but the director has released a couple of movies such as Bablusha, A day in the city. This is a new upcoming south indian regional language movie which will be released on june 1. Currently the production is going on and this page was created by the directors request. Feel free to comment otherwise
Delete-WP is not a site for promotional activities.The author got it wrong.Zero notability and coverage in WP:RS as of now.Winged Blades^Godric 13:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Does not meet GNG. Arunram (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' for now. I couldn't find anything for it, not even using "ಕೆಂಪಿರವೇ" in the India WP's search engine. It looks like this is just too new and too obscure to have received any coverage in RS. When it releases and gets the necessary coverage it can have an article but for now it's just too soon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:NFILM. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:15, 24 March 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) —MRD2014 📞 contribs 14:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Royal House of Grace International Church[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Stanleytux (talk) 06:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Stanleytux (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm usually lineal in my application of notability parameters for some Nigerian organizations such as schools and churches because of variation in the structure of our digital penetration. That being said, a church established in 1992, that has hosted two Governors of Rivers State, Rotimi Ameachi and Governor Wike; associates with the Governor of Bayelsa State; tries to solve societal crisis; and has branches in Port harcourt passes some of the criteria of WP:CHURCH, even though its a failed proposal. The church is also noted to have 500 members in 1993 (the number is in its thousands in 2017), hosts radio and television programs on national television, heads the Rivers State chapter of Christian Association of Nigeria, Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria and ICIC 1. The pastor was also listed in 2003 as one of the most powerful religious figures in Nigeria by Newswatch Magazine. This is tending towards a keep for me. Darreg (talk) 10:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Stanleytux (talk) 06:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Darreg. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and hpe for improvemetn,; significant church.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I agree that it seems very large and somewhat notable. Also note, there is a related AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King David Zilly Aggrey. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:52, 22 March 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) 00:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Prefontaine[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither his role as coach or player rises to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This one seems weak even by Dolovis standards. Does not meet NHOCKEY and not finding significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: I was thinking exactly like Rlendog; truth be told, I'd support an A7 speedy deletion for failure to make an assertion of notability. The guy played a handful of undistinguished seasons in the low minors. He's been an assistant coach in the semi-pros for a few years. No distinction or hints of one even at those levels. WTH? Ravenswing 23:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:NHOCKEY. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:18, 24 March 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) 00:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Sicinski[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This one seems weak even by Dolovis standards. Does not meet NHOCKEY and the only coverage I am finding is brief mentions or transactions. Rlendog (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. He had a glittering career, no error ... in the German low minor leagues. Even his German Wikipedia article is nothing more than a recapitulation of his franchise moves, and lacks sources. Ravenswing 23:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any notable items Bill McKenna (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:NHOCKEY.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:19, 24 March 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) 00:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American Mayor[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Totally non-notable minor documentary. Previous AfD closed in 2008 with no consensus; much of the opinion was "well let's wait and see". Well, we have waited, and we have seen nothing to indicate notability. The majority of sources in the article are deadlinks. Those that aren't are largely about the filmmaker's previous film. There are no reviews of this film from reliable sources like NYT or similar. The film is not even listed at Rotten Tomatoes to assist in finding any notable reviews. There is some extremely sparse local-only coverage of his unsuccessful run for mayor, but even that fails to nudge the film over the WP:GNG line, as it is routine local coverage of him, not his movie. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a completely unnotable film about a completely unnotable individual. There are basically zero reliable sources that mention this film. The sources currently in the article are, as mentioned by the nom, dead links, and even before that would not have been able to establish notability as they are all just local coverage (and not even about the film for the most part, based on the names of the articles). 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. My searches for "American Mayor" + "Travis Irvine" don't yield anything that would suggest independent notability. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The GNG isn't met by the sources I was able to find (what little there was!). Exemplo347 (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched but couldn't find sources. and Note that the link to the NYTimes leads to a current page, not to anything about this film; I searched for this film on NYTimes.com and couldn't find it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:21, 24 March 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stormy Lake (Canada)[edit]

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

Set index article with just one blue link. The red links are not linked anywhere else on Wikipedia. The article was recently deprodded by DGG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 03:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reason DGG stated when he removed the PROD: "All of them are potential articles, all probably notable". -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most geographic features are notable -- technically we might delete as unused disambiguation, but I think that's valuing form over substance. If articles are possible and there's no advertising or the like, I do;t see the point of deletion. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The geographic features themselves are notable, as long as the author gives some information about the other formations that are not currently linked anywhere else, I vote to keep. AdityaBahl (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC) _{Striking !vote of blocked sock TonyBallioni (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two other lakes are mentioned on Wikipedia so it's a useful page per WP:DABMENTION. One of them is in Wisconsin, however, so I've had to rename the page. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, especially after the rename and expansion by Tavix, per WP:DABMENTION. Potentially useful and ultimately harmless dab page. Antepenultimate (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: valid and useful dab page. PamD 09:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MOS:DABMENTION. The article on Haliburton County should have had a link to the associated redlink, but it had been mislinked to Stormy Lake. Boleyn (talk) 09:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See no reason to delete. As other editors have stated, MOS:DABMENTION appears to apply. CBS527^Talk 13:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think there's a lot of lake pages like this that I haven't had a chance to browse through. Arrowhead Lake (Ontario) is another example of a page mentioning four lakes. WP:GEOLAND says that any named physical feature is notable, "provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist". Considering that there are hundreds (thousands?) of named lakes in Ontario, I don't believe most of these meet the notability criteria, but I am not familiar enough with the individual bodies of water. --NoGhost (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a disambiguation page. It is not a regular article. It provides supporting service to readers and potential editors looking for an article on any one of the "Stormy Lake"s in Canada. Disambiguation pages are cheap, like redirects, should be created freely. And it is silly to be having a big discussion about it. --do ncr am 23:30, 18 March 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) 00:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Ward[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial, significant support. Minor actor. reddogsix (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His most significant role seems to be an uncredited appearance in Ant-Man. Scant coverage in secondary sources. Imalawyer (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, i've removed some weasels, but non-notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be an autobiography too. No evidence of meeting WP:NACTOR, although I imagine it would be very hard for a stuntman to meet those criteria, so we have to fall back on significant coverage, and there isn't any. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:26, 24 March 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. Article should be considerably revised as well. (non-admin closure) J 947 21:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wheels For Wishes[edit]

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

Non-profit with no meaningful press coverage other than in connection with the Make-A-Wish Foundation (fails WP:INHERITORG). Notably, the only press coverage not listed in the article appears to be a series of reports alleging that the foundation misled consumers. E.g., [10], which makes me very suspicious about the origins of this article. But even adding those sources would not add up to WP:ORG as once-off reports that a charity is not kosher don't make the charity inherently notable. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 contribs 03:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only if sharply revised' per this gNews search: [11] This "charity" has been exposed as semi-fraudulent, and dumpec by at least one chapter of the Make a Wish Foundation. Certainly we cannot keep it in it's present form.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:30, 24 March 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) 00:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Beard[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. VP of artists and repertoire (A&R) at a music label does not make him notable. This also reads like a resume. -- Dane ^talk 00:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As VP of A&R at Artist Publishing Group, Miles Beard has worked with artists and created singles that meet #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 on the criteria for musicians and ensembles. His A&R work also qualifies him for #5 in the composers and lyricists criteria. Charlie Puth's "See You Again" which Beard worked on was nominated for both a Grammy and a Golden Globe. The single also won the Critics' choice movie award for best song, as well as two Billboard Music Awards. Music Business WorldWide named Miles Beard one of the winners of the MBW Young Executive Award by Google Play Music, in 2015. These are a few of Beard's accolades, which I believe qualify him for a verified Wikipedia page.Fairfax17 (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 02:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Beyond the routine announcements there is a lack of any coverage about him. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician whose coverage does not rise above routine coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being an A&R person is not important in itself. All of the claims to notability (including the above keep argument) are covered by WP:NOTINHERITED, he'd only be relevant if he'd produced the tracks, which he didn't. He's basically just an industry employee. KaisaL (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable musician.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:28, 24 March 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) 00:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Jaffer[edit]

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

Although there are claims in the article of notability, a good faith Google search isn't turning up independent, reliable sources showing the notability of Hassan Jaffer, Hassan Jaffer Ali, or Horleony. Prod was contested by article author without adding sources addressing notability issues, so here we are. Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The name of the subject's creator/contributer and the content of the article having very similar writing styles to what is on the only source, which is his personal web page, there is a Conflict of Interest issue here. Along with no reliable sources this turns quickly into not notable. - Pmedema (talk) 03:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.FITINDIA (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was number 10 on my CSD log, but the tags aren't there any more. I see in the history some Adam contested a CSD, but I don't see where I added it. L3X1 (distant write) 22:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You added the tag to a previous version of the article, which I deleted. The page's creator then recreated the article, complete with your deletion tag, which Adam contested.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:30, 24 March 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) 00:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tehran House of Volleyball[edit]

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

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

I cannot find evidence to suggest this building exists. All other links about this location are Wikipedia-based. Therefore, this may be a hoax and needs deletion. GammaRadiator (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as possible hoax. If it is deemed to exist, the nature of the article suggests it would almost certainly fail WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does not appear to be a hoax, nothing hoaxlike about it. There's nothing embarrassing about the article. It looks like there may be a translation issue; I would strongly prefer for a Farsi-conversant editor to be involved in reviewing here. It may be the "home ground" of Paykan Tehran VC according to somewhere, then the Wikipedia article for that professional volleyball club (VC) says its home ground is Khaneh Volleyball Tehran, so maybe this is a different name for that. Another Tehran VC is Persepolis VC. It's appropriate for Wikipedia to have coverage of a professional volleyball league in Iran, which could not possibly survive in the U.S. I wouldn't want to go on a deletion spree here. Tag it for development and look for some Iranian / Farsi editor input. --do ncr am 07:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Google translate for "Tehran House of Volleyball" yields "خانه تهران والیبال". Googling on that brings up Iran volleyball sites and photos like this one which has posters of Iranian leaders looking down on the volleyball court. The topic does not seem to be a hoax. Premise of AFD is incorrect -> Keep. And a 1500-seat (if that is what it is) stadium purpose-built for volleyball seems significant to me; I don't know of any larger (or smaller, either). --do ncr am 07:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. The photos and a google map location for it make it seem pretty real. Photos of the women playing with hijab outfits are pretty striking to me, a different kind of normal. It is eye-opening to see the stadium itself, that's not the kind of scene and kind of investment in Tehran that Americans hear about. I expect there's coverage in Persian language of the building's construction and more. This seems comparable or more important than, say, 1200-seat Quinn Coliseum, found within Category:Volleyball venues in the United States though it doesn't seem like it is volleyball-focused. We have many articles about hockey stadiums. There are tons of articles in Category:Indoor arenas in the United States. Attacking this one in Iran seems U.S.-centric, and projection of a hoax somewhat seems to fit in with anti-immigration executive orders directed at Iran and the like going on in the U.S., so I say avoid this. --do ncr am 07:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete As it is now, the article does not appear to pass GNG and I'm unsure if its status as home court for that professional team is enough. I am on the fence, though. If more could be added to show notability, I may change my viewpoint. South Nashua (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't want to be uncivil but we need to have our discussions without a WP:SOAPBOX. I can't find any reliable sources and regardless if it can or can't be verified, without the sources it is not notable. - Pmedema (talk) 03:39, 17 March 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] ttp://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/02/turkey-erdogan-promising-a-national-or-a-ghost-army.html

[2] ttp://english.aawsat.com/2017/02/article55367710/6-factions-constitute-core-turkey-backed-syrian-national-army

[3] "Moonlight Directs Boost a Chopped and Screwed version Of Its Soundtrack".|accessdate=27 Feb 2017

[4] ""Moonlight" Director Barry Jenkins Teams Up With The Chopstars For "Purple Moonlight" Mixtape".|accessdate=27 Feb 2017

[5] ""The Black Market With Michael K Williams" The Lean Scene (TV Episode 2016)". Retrieved 22 December 2016.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]