Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 May	11 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete. Per WP:G6 by User:DGG. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lynx Aviation (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Only one real entry. The other doesn't have an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. I want to be surprised this one went 10 years before being caught, but I'm not. Good catch, Clarity! - BilCat (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, WP:G6. This would fall under "disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)"". -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The second entry should have just been removed as an entry with no wikilinks or article and then speedy delete. Boleyn (talk) 08:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing appropriate for a dab page here. PamD 11:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FanBridge[edit]

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

Unremarkable private company; significant RS coverage not found. Coverage is routine for tech startups -- TechCrunch, online profile, funding news, etc, as well as speculative headlines, as in: Could this startup...?

The article has been previously deleted following a 2011 AfD. Created in 2016 by Special:Contributions/LandonLCarter with no other contributions outside of this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another branding platform. scope_creep (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete fails CORPDEPTH. I think GNG could be reached, the Tech Crunch coverage is a good start. Not enough, though. South Nashua (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus Solicitors[edit]

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

N - sourcing fails WP:CORP, DEPTH isn't good. Previous Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nexus_Solicitors was low participation Widefox; talk 22:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Small law firm (9 partners, 33 lawyers including non-partners).Icewhiz (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The text and available references indicate a company going about its business with routine announcements, but nothing available, including the Legal500 listing, appears indicative of encyclopaedic notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails gng Chetsford (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KazhutALOOR SIVA TEMPLE[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG guidelines. Could not find any sources that indicated notability Skamecrazy123 (talk) 10:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TNT Power~enwiki (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I find nothing that indicates even minimum notability. Not even sure it's real.Glendoremus (talk) 03:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) f e minist 01:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Murray (field hockey player)[edit]

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

I have been unable to locate many reliable independent sources. Fails WP:NSPORT, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. Adam9007 (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Doesn't seem to meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. There is some coverage but most is trivial ROTM sports coverage and match reports that are otherwise to be expected. Nothing to indicate broader notability. At best a case of WP:TOOSOON. Guliolopez (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He has played for a national team in the FIH Hockey World League.[1] There is no specific guideline in WP:NSPORT for field hockey, but in most other sports, an international cap makes the subject notable. The article would be bolstered by more coverage in reliable sources. However, I think the best course for the article at this point is to improve sourcing rather than delete. I'm willing to revisit the matter in six months if no sources turn up after searching. —C.Fred (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Otero (Magician)[edit]

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

Non-notable magician lacking non-trivial support. Fails to show notability. reddogsix (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a semi-notable to notable Latin-American magician who is very popular with his audiences.[2] Spanish speaker needed to establish notability via reliable sources. Knox490 (talk) 01:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Let's be clear, the only measure of notability is establishing the article subject meets the criteria in WP:N or associated criteria. Stating a subject appears to be notable has no bearing in this discussion. reddogsix (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Famous magician like Max Maven wrote great things about Luis in this page http://www.penguinmagic.com/p/7725 this page is one of the most important vendor of magic tutorials. As well Jeff McBride wrote awesome review in the same page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armandourbina (talk • contribs)

Comment - As well you can put Luis Otero Magician in Google and you will see all his work in many pages, videos are published too acting in TV Shows such as Bogota Magia y Humor

In this page you will see http://www.penguinmagic.com/p/7725 below reviews

Quotes/Reviews

"Luis is a brilliant entertainer with a pack of cards. I have seen him on large stages and close up and his dynamic style always leaves the audience breathless.” - Jeff McBride (Wikipedia source)

"Recognized Latin-American artist. His vision of magic, from the deepest to the most superficial, their continuous studies, countless collaborations, and a lifetime of passion and work and magic, certainly place him in the spotlight of all those who love this art and make it prosper more and more. I really recommend his master lecture, far from being commercial, and focused on teaching, not just games, techniques, thoughts or ideas, but also a philosophy (almost become a way of life). No doubt who sees Luis Otero sees something different, fresh, original, entertaining and very magical.

I've seen him work a hundred times. I've seen him succeed a hundred times! I shared, dialogued, studied and worked with him, and so, from the virtue of being able to speak in first person, I assure that Luis, Mr. Otero, is the ideal mirror for everyone who wants further progress in this beautiful art with is magic." - Dani DaOrtiz

"Luis Otero is going to fool you. His ingenuity and cleverness, combined with sleight-of hand, create powerful pieces that will leave your audiences without any clue! Enjoy his magic, try it out and find out for yourself what I mean, because, above all, the material he will share is very very strong! And, on top of this, you will feel the true love for the study of magic as an art form that Luis so much cares about. All these qualities combined, make him more than an artist, make him a true magician at heart. If you know Luis, you know all I'm saying is true. If you don't know Luis, you are in for a real treat." - Helder Guimarães (Wikipedia source)

"Magicians like secrets, and magicians like surprises. So, I am sure that you will like Luis Otero, because outside of Latin America he is mostly a secret (but not for long), and his clever magic is filled with surprises, with ideas you can really use." - Max Maven (Wikipedia source)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Armandourbina (talk • contribs)

Comment - First of all the website "http://www.penguinmagic.com/p/7725" is hardly independent. References must be independent. Beyond that, in order for an article to be retained in Wikipedia, the article must be supported by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. The quotes above do nothing to meet the required support. reddogsix (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article reads as a promotion. Search of magic books and periodicals through from Conjuring Arts Research Center fails to convinced me of notability PriceDL (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boulder Group (brokerage firm)[edit]

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

not notable Geejayen (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N, WP:COMPANY and WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mélencron (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

French presidential election, 2022[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTALBALL; incredibly premature, most declarations of candidacies probably won't be known until past 2020, and there probably won't be more than a dozen polls until 2020 as well – article is simply an empty husk until then. Mélencron (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually, WP:CRYSTAL is typically interpreted to allow an article on the next one in an ongoing series of notable events; the guideline specifically mentions the 2020 US Presidential election as an example of an appropriate article topic. Unless there is something particularly uncertain about the next French election, I'd think there will quickly be enough material to add here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As has been pointed out by Arxiloxos, the nominator misunderstands WP:CRYSTAL, which allows for articles on "Individual scheduled or expected future events... [that are] notable and almost certain to take place". See, for example, the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2020 (2nd nomination). Number 5 7 06:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. An article on the 2027 election would be too premature though and that could probably be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL. Not this one. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 13:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep– per the other votes, WP:CRYSTAL does not apply to the next election in a regular cycle. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom has cited WP:CRYSTAL which states "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation". It also states, in the first point, that examples of appropriate topics for articles about upcoming events include future elections. AusLondonder (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of theaters and cinemas in Hyderabad[edit]

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

Same as first nomination (which was withdrawn) as it fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. A whole long list of non-notable cinemas and original research to add Ajf773 (talk) 08:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article contains minimal sourcing and does not adhere to Wikipedia guidelines.TH1980 (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The city have some world class cinema's such as ( Prasads IMAX and is a hub of Telugu cinema ) and few historical theaters which are of good information. So the list could be of good information.--Omer123hussain (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Two list articles is hardly a measure for list notability. Ajf773 (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Anything notable on its own should have its own article. Otherwise...we're not a business directory. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Only one entry has an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a lot of original research has gone into these lists. None of the info is referenced. Agree with others--Wiki is not a directory.Glendoremus (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR Chetsford (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Eternity[edit]

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

No evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only found shop listings. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 04:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear that this subject does not meet the notability guidelines. As for redirecting/merging, there is no target to merge to and the current article does not mention the film in any detail worth creating a stand-alone article from. If and when an article about the film is created, this can be recreated as a redirect. And if someone really needs the text to create such an article about the film, I'm willing to provide a copy for this purposes if asked. Regards So Why 12:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eunice Wu[edit]

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

Non notable film maker. No mentions in press, search pulls up non RS primaries, fails GNG and all 4 criterion of WP:NFILMMAKER L3X1 (distant write) 16:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to figure out whether it could redirect to some article regarding California Proposition 8 (2008) or Post-election events of Proposition 8 (2008) but it is not mentioned in any of the articles. Same with film festivals. If it won some film festival award maybe it could redirect there? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to The Best Is Yet To Come (2010 film) as the film itself passes WP:NFILM having per http://ideas.org.tw/magazine_article.php?f=408 "來自台灣的Eunice Wu所執導女同志電影《The Best Is Yet To Come》即入圍了全球22個電影獎的獎項。been shown at 22 festivals and received press coverage, but the director appears to have not made anything notable since, and the benchmark for a BLP article is higher than for a film. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON at best. Not sure if there is anything that could be rescued by merging into the non-yet existing article on the movie. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for filmmakers, not enough sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move, per User:In ictu oculi's reasonable suggestion. This leaves a redirect behind. --do ncr am 21:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 13:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and keep, per WP:Preserve Siuenti (씨유엔티) 22:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Googling the film yields nothing but self-published results/PR releases. Which are the 22 film festivals? I highly doubt any of them is notable. Timmyshin (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 4D 2K and a move.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 18:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The best may be yet to come, but it isn't here yet. One short film without any awards claimed doesn't satisfy WP:CREATIVE by a wide margin. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this individual clearly doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NCREATIVE. The suggestion to create an article about the film and then redirect there would be a good one, if the film itself were notable, but I see no evidence of that either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Thame United F.C.. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ASM Stadium[edit]

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

Article about the home ground of a football club that plays at the ninth level of football and which has never hosted football higher than level eight (the generally accepted cut-off point in English football is level 5, the lowest national level). Article created by the same editor who has created seevral articles on players for the club despite them not being notable (see these AfDs, one of which he ignored and recreated the article shortly after it had closed). Unsurprisingly it was said editor who also removed the prod without a rationale. I think the possibility of a topic ban may also require consideration if the community's time is going to be continued to be wasted in this way. Number 5 7 18:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thame United F.C., the home club. Giant Snowman 19:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per GiantSnowman. It's a plausible search term, and the team is notable (the cutoff for teams is Level 10, not Level 5), but it's not notable in its own right. Smartyllama (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - a plausible search term and I would expect a brief section on the stadium in the club article. The deletion rationale is flawed however, there is no consensus for cut off for ground notability, nor should there be as this is already governed by WP:GEOFEAT, a guideline which this stadium fails. Fenix down (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per GiantSnowman Chetsford (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – per above. A valid search term I believe but not appropriate as a stand alone article. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) f e minist 01:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Museum of Natural History[edit]

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

Wrong use of DAB. It creates confusion because one article is about a municipal natural history and science museum in Denver, Colorado named the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, and the other article is about the University of Colorado Museum of Natural History which is a museum of natural history at a university in Boulder, Colorado. Neither of the aforementioned articles indicates any concern over readers being confused by the very different names. I also don't see any evidence where there was a name change. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous sources note that the Denver Museum of Nature and Science was previously the Denver Museum of Natural History, and before that its original name, for almost 50 years, was in fact Colorado Museum of Natural History, e.g. [3][4][5][6] etc. Indeed, it appears that the actual legal name of the Denver museum's organizational entity is still Colorado Museum of Natural History per [7][8]. Add to that the fact that when you Google this name, you get a consistent, relatively even mixture of Denver and Boulder results. Seems like there's a reasonable need for disambiguation. Having said that, perhaps some use of reciprocal headnotes, per WP:TWODABS, might suffice. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links, Arxiloxos, they actually provide the supporting documentation necessary to delete the dab, and I'll briefly explain why. The Denver Museum of Nature and Science has changed its name twice (every half-century), but it's still in the same location. It was the Colorado Museum of Natural History from 1900-1950 when the name was changed to the Denver Museum of Natural History, then in 2000 it became the Denver Museum of Nature & Science. The dab page is what confuses readers. When I first saw it (as an article instead of a dab), I thought maybe one wasn't a museum because of the way we use dab, but as I studied it a bit more, I realized the links were to two different museums. Why? 67 years have passed since the Denver museum was called the Colorado Museum of Natural History, which is still located in Denver where it has always been. On the other hand, the University of Colorado Museum of Natural History is located on the University of Colorado Boulder campus 35+ miles away - a different museum in a completely different city. I suppose we could create a dab for the museums in each state that have the Museum of Natural History in their names, or had a name change nearly a century ago. That's going to require a lot of dabbing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unless it can be demonstrated that one of these entities is the primary topic of the term. If this leads to disambiguation pages for every state with a similar situation, so be it. bd2412 T 10:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article titles are not ambiguous, as would be a search for Mercury or Paris Treaty. The names won't cause editors to wikilink to the wrong article. A WP search for the University of Colorado Museum of Natural History takes you to the correct article, as it should. A search for the Denver Museum of Nature and Science takes you to the correct article, as it should. If I'm not mistaken, my interpretation of a dab page is that it should not be used as a TOC or list of names in a category such as Museums in Colorado. In this particular case, regardless of century old history that few even know, it's an unnecessary stop that creates confusion which defeats one of the 3 purposes of a dab, and that is to clarify ambiguous titles to help the reader "get to the information on that topic quickly and easily". ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The purpose of the dab page is to take you to the right place if you type "Colorado museum of natural history" in the search box. There is currently no museum with precisely that name. There are 2 pages someone might mean; the CU museum (whose name is pretty close), and the Denver museum (whose name used to be exactly the dab name, but that was a while ago). We don't know which one they want. I don't think you could call either one the primary topic, so you need to ask the reader which one they mean. I disagree this page confuses the reader; it's purpose, which I think it fulfills, is to avoid confusion from a reader landing on the wrong page. If someone can show one of these is the primary topic, this could be a redirect to that page with a hatnote to the other. Otherwise, keep as is. Atsme, do I understand right you think the CU museum is the primary topic? If so, why do you think that? --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of reasons, Floquenbeam beginning with the parenthetical "find sources" above that links to Colorado Museum of Natural History which brings up CU in the search, at is should. When you enter Colorado museum in the WP search bar, the dab comes up, and creates confusion over the names. If anything, when Colorado museum is entered in the search bar, the List of museums in Colorado should pop-up in the search not the dab that links to only two museums with entirely different names. Colorado Museum of Natural History should link to the CU and nothing else, and it may even be better served as a #redirect. The Denver Museum of Nature and Science doesn't need a dab or a redirect because when you enter Denver museum in the search, it's there. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait; the very first item that comes up when clicking the "finding sources" link above is the ProPublica link to the Denver museum! And again, the only thing that has ever actually been called "Colorado Museum of Natural History" is the Denver museum; I can't see a justifcation for not linking to that somehow. And if there's no primary target, I think this dab page is the best solution. Anyway, wouldn't your concern be much better served by creating a redirect at Colorado museums to List of museums in Colorado so that shows up in the search box as a suggestion? Even without the issue you're reporting, that seems like a useful new redirect, so I've gone ahead and done that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least some progress was made. Floquenbeam, please see this diff as I sought a 2nd opinion before tagging for an AfD. I was looking to find the best solution without it being too much of a time sink considering the growing backlog in NPR which led me this article in the first place. It shouldn't be an article, and I didn't immediately see the need for a dab which is why I didn't add the template. The latter was added later by another editor which I subsequently removed in order to file this AfD. Perhaps the redirect suggestion by Sphilbrick would be the best option. If it turns out the dab stays, the dab template needs to be replaced, and the article marked as patrolled. ^{Atsme📞📧} 08:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde and Willis (animated series)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTV and the general notability guideline. Out of all sources provided, one appears to be the creator's website and the others don't mention the show at all. A Google search shows that this does in fact exist (and therefore does not qualify for G3 (I believe, please correct me if I'm wrong)), but only on YouTube. No other reliable, secondary sources about this show were found in my search. PROD removed by article creator. SkyWarrior 17:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above plus it's pretty clear that this & multiple related articles by the same creator are WP:COI pieces meant to WP:PROMO this studio after they failed to get a TV deal. JamesG5 (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - After doing a bit more digging here and at the other article WP:Articles for deletion/Andrew Bernie Wilson this is [redacted] using a game platform to YouTube videos. All the references given for "deals" to buy the show do not check out. The YouTube channel for the videos has just over 100 subscribers and barely 2000 views. The new editor below suggesting "keep" shows by his edits he's another Roblox user in the friends group. This is an amateur project that does not meet WP:GNG. JamesG5 (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SkyWarrior 01:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Animated series has relations with Cartoon Network an undoubtebly notable TV channel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aca rblx (talk • contribs) 13:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC) — Aca rblx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

NOTE The above editor campaigning for a delete is making false claims. He suggests that I know andrew which I do not. He is assuming that by the age of the person that the article is about that he is not notable. This is called age discrimination. Also they are participating in subscribercount discrimination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aca rblx (talk • contribs) 17:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete makes no credible indication of notability. Uncle Roy (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above. This looks like perhaps a Wikipedia:Walled garden with a dedicated cadre mustered to argue for keep, w/o any understanding of our notability guidelines. Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references provided for coverage in reliable secondary sources. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 16:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I can find no coverage in the usual American trade publications, so this is almost certainly non-notable. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Srinagar bypoll election killings 2017[edit]

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

WP:CONTENTFORK from 2016–17_Kashmir_unrest#April_2017. The article has been created for WP:PROPAGANDA. The title and the contents violate WP:NPOV by WP:CHERRYPICKing of sources. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As I mentioned on the talk page, this article is an extreme POV take on the affair. Some cleaned up version of this content can be added to Srinagar (Lok Sabha constituency) by-election, 2017 but there is absolutely no need for a separate article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per the above statements, and no/very little encyclopedic content in the article that does not necessitate a separate article. All issues are elaborated on the article's talk page. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 10:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Severe lack of NPOV, article from get-go implies that all casualties were targeted killings, which isn't the case here, and poll bound violence is somewhat a common occurrence in state of J&K and some parts of India.Redhat101 Talk 00:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROPAGANDA. Capitals00 (talk) 08:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It is not a content fork, it was created first. Also it is notable event as it was first time in history of the world and India that people were killed on the day of Democratic election. So it should have separate article. I don't see any mention of target killings in the article, it is mentioned that the bullets were returned on protesters. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 11:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should open and read the page on WP:CONTENTFORK. A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles (or passages within articles) all treating the same subject. [...] Examples of this might be the cuisine of a particular region forking from an article about the region in general... You can fork the 'cuisine' article from the 'region' article if the cuisine is notable, by making a summary-style spin off. This incident is a part of 2016–17_Kashmir_unrest#April_2017. The election coincided with an ongoing unrest, and so the violence occurred on the election day. The article was created by you on 9 April.[9] The content on this subject was summarized in the unrest article on 11 April,[10] after the creation of this article, and not by you. You did not bother to summarize about this anywhere before/after your creation of this fork. Also, here is the evidence that you were an active editor of the parent article, and well-aware of its existence.[11] it was created first: Created first, before what article? Even the by-election article was created on 16 March,[12] 25 days before this article's creation. it is mentioned that the bullets were returned on protesters: Please read the 2nd section on the talk page. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More than the by-polls itself, the killings made global headlines. The event is notable enough to have its stand alone article. The Guardian Al Jazeera DAWN BBC Economic Times India Today - Mfarazbaig (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom and above editors and per WP:TNT due to its pov issue. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete with no prejudice against recreation once notability exists.

While there was no consensus to userfy/draftify, I'm willing to draftify the article on request. Regards So Why 12:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hyder Kazmi[edit]

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

Non notable actor/director who fails WP:NACTOR as well as WP:GNG. Created by a single purpose editor who uses the said person's name indicating possible COI. User:Melcous had PRODed the page besides adding multiple tags which was removed by the said editor with an outrageous claim that the actor has received the prestigious Dadasaheb Phalke Award in 2017 for a non-existent category. Lies, deceit and promotional-ism. Jupitus Smart 16:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: appears to be some claim to notability, but as written is self-promotional and the linked references mostly appear to be user generated content. Melcous (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jupitus Smart @Melcous As informed earlier i am new here and getting some more new sources like time of india for proof. Hyderkazmi (talk) 06:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being new does not give you a free hand to write such blatant lies on articles. Anyway I would like to see what source you can come up with for the claim that he won the Dadasaheb Phalke Award in 2017 (which incidentally will be announced only next year). Jupitus Smart 06:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jupitus Smart This is a YouTube Video with proof of him getting the award. You might have a look at it. Also just to let you know that the image on his wiki page now has the award in his hands. Forgot to mention so had to update in the same source. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRuPnVEk4Ec Hyderkazmi (talk) 06:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to be ignorant in a good faith manner, I will enlighten you on this. The Dada Saheb Film Foundation awards are non notable awards which are widely considered as paid awards - Huffington Post article. However the Dadasaheb Phalke Award is India's highest honour for film personalities. Have it changed in the article to Dada Saheb Film Foundation awards, which is what Kazmi won. As for the references, we need references from reliable sources to establish notability. Most of the references you have included do not qualify as reliable sources, according to WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources. As for the Times of India articles, all of them are Press releases sourced from non-reliable sources, which are reproduced in the Times of India, as mentioned in a footnote below each of the reports.

[13] - is sourced from bhojpuriyacinema.com
[14], [15], [16] and [17]- are sourced from bhojpurimedia.com

These cannot also be considered as reliable, as besides being sourced from non-reliable sources, they do not seem to have undergone any editorial oversight, and seems to have been reproduced as is, considering that all of them are very badly written. Also read WP:NACTOR to know what kind of references are required to establish notability for actors. Since he needs roles in multiple notable films, and none of his movies seem to be notable, I don't think he passes WP:NACTOR. Anyway, you seem to have a conflict of interest as you share your name with the actor. If you are indeed the actor or are paid by him, I would advise you to make a declaration regarding the same. Jupitus Smart 07:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jupitus Smart I guess i got what you are trying to say. The sources are not reliable and are not posted by any reporter from the TOI. Those sources are from another websites. Now is there any solution to keep the article. He is an actor for sure and some people know him but there are no sources as of now i see. Need to search a bit and make sure those are reliable. Hyderkazmi (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional and not meeting notability guidelines. If there is a prospect of improved sourcing, the article could be moved to Draft space and submitted through Articles for Creation(which is the best way for someone to submit an autobiographical article, if at all) 331dot (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see an update with 2 more authentic newspapers. Telegraph links updated. If i find more sources i'll make sure to update them as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyderkazmi (talk • contribs) 08:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to tell you Hyderkazmi. We generally don't allow creating Wikipages about oneself, though you seem to be civil and understanding about that. The Telegraph links are again about one of his movies, and not about the person, which still doesn't satisfy WP:NACTOR. And when I asked you to change the award, I thought I was clear that you should not link back to Dadasaheb Phalke Award, with the text on screen as Dada Saheb Phalke foundation Award. Also please do not edit the page with IPs to add original research, when you have an account. It is against sockpuppetry policies. Jupitus Smart 09:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh allright. I'll remove the link to Dadasaheb Phalke Award and i am still trying to find good sources. I might soon update. I know its against the guide lines but there must be some way in which i can be helped. I do not understand what should i do now. I just don't want this to be deleted. (Practically: Feeling annoyed.) Hyderkazmi (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest thing to do is wait. Any article that is deleted can be recreated when you satisfy notability guidelines. So if your future movies and you get more press coverage from reliable sources in the future, the article can easily be recreated, ideally by someone other than you. Jupitus Smart 09:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me create it when i have more good sources published. Hyderkazmi (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that you had revealed on the talk page that you were Hyder Kazmi, when you created the page. I had an inkling of doubt earlier, though I was not sure. Anyway your interactions have been civil, unlike the slugfest that usually goes on in discussions involving Indian movie personalities, which I am used to as I edit in this field. Our autobiography policy discourages editors from creating articles about themselves, however notable they may be. As for your query, contact me on my talk page, when you feel that there are enough references about you. I am an Autopatrolled editor, and that comes with certain responsibilities. So I will try to help you create your article when you contact me in the future, though I will not create it myself, as that would bypass a review by another neutral editor. One of the reasons why we discourage autobiographical articles, is they can never be neutral and fair, and they tend to provide undue weight on the positives. I can therefore probably help to trim down your article to make it neutral, verifiable, and devoid of original research. I must also warn you that after creating your article, your page can be edited by anybody, who may add data that you may find demeaning. In such a case, there is no recourse for you, if the negative data is properly referenced, and it will end up doing more harm than good for your career. Jupitus Smart 12:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable autobiography. No issue if someone wants to draftify it so that it can be worked on under Jupitus Smart's tutelage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest of the Nanda Empire[edit]

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

Despite efforts by various editors since this article was created in 2011, this article is very poorly written and provides little meaningful information about the topic. It seems to be primarily made up of original research, lacks reliable sources and is not neutral in its tone. Chewings72 (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've expanded the article and sources. The war/conquest was a significant event or group of events in the ancient world and seems to me to very much merit an article in Wikipedia. After my initial edit, tone and NPOV issues remain, especially with the bits I've taken from the original article. I'll try to edit these a bit more. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Chandragupta Maurya -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support last suggestion: while the subject is clearly significant (though not something I know about) what he have appears merely to be a copy and paste fork of that article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it is worth, a copy-paste performed (and credited in the edit summary) May 7 was from the recently updated Conquest of the Nanda Empire article to Chandragupta Maurya, and not the other way around. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge and redirect. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Given the excellent and complete rewrite by Smmurphy, I have no issues in seeing what is now effectively a new article kept.Chewings72 (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Event is notable, article has been improved. Srnec (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a notable topic, worthy of an article, meets WP:GNG, thanks to article improvements by Smmurphy. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been improved since the nomination and now shows notability. Anarchyte (work | talk) 23:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It's clear from the discussion here that there is no consensus to outright delete the page. That said, calls for redirecting or merging the article are not to be ignored. While there was no consensus to redirect/merge in this discussion, this does not mean this shouldn't be done. Since AfD - unlike other XfDs - is only about whether the page should be deleted, a keep-result does not necessary prevent anyone from proposing a merger using the usual venues. Regards So Why 12:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Cochran (Survivor contestant)[edit]

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

All coverage I can see appears to be Hollywood Reporter and so on. I suggest voting him off the island. E Eng 13:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He is really well known in the Survivor community, and the article has plenty of references from TV, magazines, and elsewhere. Besides, all Survivor winners get their own article, per convention. Greggens (talk) 04:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being well-known in some community doesn't count, and the references are almost entirely to the shows themselves. The one or two remaining are promotional fluff. If I've missed something, please point to it. E Eng 20:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the references may be to episodes of the show, but it's an internationally popular show, viewed by millions in the United States alone. If it's more news references you want, that can be fixed easily (click here to view latest page update). Greggens (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two sources in the article which even conceivably count as independent and reliable:

A local newspaper item [18] which reads, in its entirety:

Oakton’s John Cochran wins ‘Survivor’ show, and $1 million – “Survivor” is the granddaddy of American reality television. It was the first one to really capture huge ratings, and helped create the revolution in television in which there are now whole channels of reality shows. In Oakton, John Cochran was watching from the start, as a 13-year-old in 2000, and he calls himself a show superfan.

Now, he is a part of Survivor history. Cochran, 26, won the 26th season of the show (there are two per year) in a live ceremony announcing the winner in Los Angeles last week. The episodes were filmed last year on Caramoan in the Philippines, where Cochran had to eat nasty things and do all the other physical and mental torture tests required of the contestants. He collects $1 million for his troubles. Cochran also competed in season 24 in 2011 but did not win.

Meanwhile, the Oakton High School graduate has just finished up his law degree at Harvard. But he tells Dave Seminara in the Fairfax County Times that he’s not sure if he wants to be a lawyer. And that after the bright lights of Hollywood, his return to Oakton is “depressing. I’m a heartthrob on a TV show, but I’m still living at my parents’ house in my childhood bedroom, refreshing message boards and Twitter, and not doing much else.”

Last year, after being voted off in season 24, he told Seminara in The Post that he had received death threats for his actions on Survivor, and was taking time off from Harvard Law to bask in the “fleeting notoriety of being a reality TV star.” He said he tended to get recognized more around Northern Virginia than at Harvard, though he later went back to Harvard and earned his law degree. Now, after a second season of life in the reality TV spotlight, Cochran said, “When I go to Tysons, the people who approach me are over the age of 60 or under the age of 12,” he said. “It’s the very old and the very, very young.”

An ABA Journal post [19] which reads, in its entirety:

Harvard Law Student Who Wrote Prizewinning Class Paper About 'Survivor' Is Now On the Show – A Harvard law student who’s a huge fan of Survivor has already parlayed his love of the reality television program into a prizewinning paper for a class on the American jury system. Now John Cochran, 24, will have a chance to try out his theories about how such groups work as a participant on the show, reports Comcast’s Xfinity blog in a Q&A with Cochran. Fortunately, an Above the Law post points out, he will have his law degree to fall back on. But in the meantime, he plans to take his television persona to the limit as long as he isn’t voted off the island. “I’m prepared to be as deceptive as I need to be. I’m not going to be deceptive for the sole sake of being deceptive, like Russell [Hantz] telling people he was a firefighter in Hurricane Katrina,” Cochran tells Xfinity. “That didn’t earn him any sympathy, he just seemed to relish lying. I wouldn’t do something like that because I don’t see the purpose. I’d only lie if it forwarded my game.”

All other sources are either the show itself, Hollywood Reporter, someone's Twitter feed, Entertainment Weekly, or Xfinity promotional material. By the way, it's refreshing to see a lawyer who only lies when it profits him, not just for the sheer pleasure of lying. E Eng 03:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainment Weekly and The Hollywood Reporter are magazines about the entertainment industry, so of course many of the articles about Survivor will come from those types of sources. Also, don't forget the article in the Oakton Patch, a regular news Web site (albeit local). But at any rate, it's going to take more than just one person wanting to delete the article for anything to happen at all. Greggens (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are two E.W. sources and one from T.H.R.. One is by the host of the show. One is a press release reading, in its entirety:

Survivor champion John Cochran has followed through on his pledge to become a writer in a big way. The winner of the CBS reality show's most recent season, Survivor: Caramoan -- Fans vs. Favorites, tweeted Thursday that he has landed a gig writing for one of the network's new comedy series.

"I'm thrilled to announce that I'm going to be a writer on the new CBS sitcom 'The Millers' (with Will Arnett, Margo Martindale, and more)!" he wrote. (The Hollywood Reporter has confirmed the news.) The Greg Garcia-created comedy centers on a recently divorced man (Arnett) whose life is complicated when his parents decide to move in with him.

Cochran, who studied law at Harvard, first revealed his plans to forgo becoming a lawyer and instead pursue writing during Survivor's live reunion show, which aired May 12. Afterward, he told THR that his dream "is an abstract aspiration at this point. I've always been a good writer in school. … Maybe I'll write some sort of screenplay, or comedy writing. Then I start thinking, am I really that funny, or am I just deluding myself?"

The two-time competitor is not the first to parlay his Survivor fame into Hollywood gigs. Among others, season one's Colleen Haskell starred with Rob Schneider in 2001's The Animal and later served as an assistant producer on E!'s The Michael Essany Show.

The third is [20]. I leave it to my esteemed fellow editors to judge whether this constitutes the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" contemplated by WP:GNG. E Eng 00:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, Survivor is not the subject of this Wikipedia article; Cochran is. None of these articles referenced were written by Cochran, who incidentally has a life outside of Survivor. Greggens (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The show itself is a WP:PRIMARY source, and is worthless for notability purposes. It's as if you said, "This reality-show contestant must be notable – look at all his appearances in the show!" Oh, wait. That actually is what you're saying. E Eng 03:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. We usually keep the winners of major "reality TV shows", regardless of their quality. Bearian (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem with that fine piece of reasoning is that that WP:OUTCOMES itself says to Avoid citing this essay at AfD, as that would promote circular reasoning. It may very well be that we usually keep such winners, but that's probably because they usually have GNG-qualifying coverage. If, by "regardless of their quality", you mean regardless of the quality of the article, that's always true, since it's the coverage that exists out in the wild, not the sources actually in the article at the moment, that counts. But no one seems to be able to point to such coverage – in the article or outside it. E Eng 03:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The latest page update shows many more news sources than before, and these sources do represent a wide array of publications. Greggens (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, which ones of these are not press releases, interviews, and duplicates of sources already in the article? Please, just list three sources meeting GNG. E Eng 03:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel his role on two season of Survivor (the TV show, not the game) was more notable than TV stars from scripted shows who are obviously kept. Power~enwiki (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Second relist for additional comments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I renew my request that someone list even three sources meeting GNG -- i.e. not not press releases, interviews, TV listings, commentary by the show's host, or episodes of the show itself. E Eng 16:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I sense multiple agendas here. There are roughly 50 pages for Survivor contestants not notable for other reasons (I note examples like Jimmy Johnson, who appeared on the show but is notable for his football career). The case for notability here should be WP:NACTOR; despite being reality television, for purposes of notability, Survivor is a popular broadcast television show and not a sporting competition. Cochran had a significant role (as defined by a large fan base or a significant "cult" following) in two seasons of the show and won 1 million dollars in one season; I think that clearly meets NACTOR, especially compared to many of the other pages. http://www.funny115.com/v3/version3.htm is a secondary source on the notability of characters on Survivor within the context of the show. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation for targeted Survivor AfDs would be any people who had an appearance on Survivor and an appearance in a beauty pageant, but were notable for neither *at the level of "episodes of the show itself". Survivor fans definitely care about John Cochran, but they don't care about Ashley Underwood (and being Miss Maine 2009 is not notable either). I'm working to update Template talk:Survivor (U.S. TV series) contestants with a full proposal. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ The interviews in my opinion have more weight than passing mentions, John I feel passes WP:ENT #2. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not independent of the subject and have zero notability value. E Eng 12:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I change my opinion to Redirect to Survivor: Caramoan. Each survivor contestant though is a separate entity (case by case basis), so going forward I want editors to keep that in mind. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Survivor: Caramoan; not independently notable, so WP:BIO1E applies. None of the other accomplishments convey independent notability. Much of the article is cited to CBS, which is not an independent source. I don't see the depth of coverage here that we'd expect in a stand-alone BLP. Anything useful (a paragraph perhaps) can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is John Cochran's page specifically being discussed for deletion? I think it's strange for any reality tv contestants to have wikis, but of Survivor contestants or winners, he's one of the most publicly visible (he returned on the most recent season in an unprecedented twist) and continues to be involved in media, having recently sold a television show to CBS (http://deadline.com/2015/12/john-cochran-survivor-greg-garcia-cbs-bobs-your-uncle-comedy-1201665477/). If you want his removed, why wouldn't you also ask for the deletion of the rest of the Survivor contestants? This seems like a personal focus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Televisionary55 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's because I happened to run into it somewhere and realized there are no independent sources. I know nothing about any of those other articles. Cool it with the conspiracy theories. E Eng 12:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel (very strongly) that WP:ENT is the right standard here, not WP:GNG. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're misinterpreting the page you're linking -- read the bit at the top (WP:Notability_(people)#Additional_criteria): "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards". They're rules of thumb. If, in the end, there are no independent sources, or a paucity of them, then there's no notability. That seems to be the case here, since no one will answer my challenger to list three independent, reliable sources giving significant coverage. E Eng 18:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel you're even attempting to engage in constructive debate at this point. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll interpret that as an admission that there are no appropriate sources. E Eng 19:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His appearance on two seasons of a major broadcast TV show is not in dispute. His having "significant fan support" is not in dispute. His having received over a million dollars in compensation for his appearance on TV shows is not in dispute. He is currently engaged in a career in the entertainment industry. Those facts make a complete case for notability, *without* the three independent sources that you keep asking about. I would note [21] and [22] as secondary sources, you can find a third one yourself. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You completely misunderstand the notion of "reliable source". E Eng 19:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not my usual field, but it seems we have articles on the winners of other parts. I do not see wh ythis particular one should be an exception. It makes sense as a criterion, as with people in all fields. (I'm not sure I;d accept this beyond the main series, but that may be my ignorance of the others). DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if somebody wants a test case as to whether all Survivor winners are notable, it should be Natalie White [23]. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a test case. It just is itself. I wish I could say I'm amazed at how far this discussion has drifted from applicable policy, but I'm not -- this happens all the time in specialized corners of the project. E Eng 22:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to National Board of Examinations. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Eligibility cum Entrance Test – Post Graduate[edit]

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

I'm pretty sure that an entrance exam for a university course isn't notable - there are, after all, thousands of these worldwide. This one doesn't even appear to be long standing but recieved a bit of news coverage after an issue in 2013. Even so, this is just news coverage and doesn't show notability. Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to National Board of Examinations and add the description and bit of news about the court case there. This is indeed not notable on its own. Jytdog (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National Eligibility and Entrance Test#NEET Postgraduate. A postgraduate equivalent of the Indian medical entrance exam that doesn't really add anything to the main article. For the American version, see MCAT. For the British version, see BMAT/UKCAT. Fuebaey (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above and include the bit of news in the appropriate place of the target article. XOR'easter (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YES I AM Reality Show[edit]

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

No evidence that this has any significance or notability. Looks like another YouTube contribution. No evidence of any TV rights and no sources so fails WP:GNG . Despite having a website, searches reveal nothing (not even the web-site) Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "2016 Coming Soon Venue: Will Be Declared" says it all; nothing on the first G-hits for "Bindass" "yes i am", and no suggestions that this is real (not counting the redlink heavy judging cast). Nate • (chatter) 15:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable - if not a hoax - Arjayay (talk) 09:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack reliable sources. I found one source that contained the same kind of promotional language as the article claiming that "The show is one of the India`s biggest reality shows held at Mumbai." That's a bold claim that if true would get considerable media coverage, which has failed to materialize. Mduvekot (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agon Mucolli[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator on the grounds that he plays for Vejle Boldklub, which does not confer notability per WP:NSPORT since the club does not play in a fully professional league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article may show multiple RSes but fail's WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.--MKJ6006 (talk) 10:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dominic Vinicius is sold to an Chinese Super League club in Beijing for an fee of more than 1 million Euro. A fully professional league, wihich in my opinion makes him notable. Can the page be re-published?Wasadogo66 (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nominator is only proposing a merge. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PE infection[edit]

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

This article is a stub with only two sentences and one source. I propose merging with another related article. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 14:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too Old To Date[edit]

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

Lack of RS, non notable promo. I am concerned by the rev history, 5 or 6 IPs doing bulk improvment edits, which appear to be socks. L3X1 (distant write) 01:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distant write) 16:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distant write) 13:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 13:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are its own website, a press release, and an itunes listing. Not sufficient. ValarianB (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources do not seem to be WP:RELIABLE MassiveYR ♠ 23:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not finding significant coverage to suggest that an article is warranted. Gongshow talk 08:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relisting, a request for closure has been filed, but so far is un-acted upon.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 11:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have been unable to find any significant third party coverage for this topic.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability provided or found. AllyD (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seina Kasugai[edit]

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

This article needs more sources to demonstrated the notability of Seina Kasugai. Its only source is material from the agency that promotes the actress, which is certainly not independent. Notability requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Eddie Blick (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article should be given more time to be built with reliable references. Subject appears to have acted in quite a large number of productions. Fatty wawa (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per A7. L3X1 (distant write) 01:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did not find anything that would help her meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Knox490 (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 13:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 11:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seeing as there is no consensus on what to redirect it to and no defense for any of the content, I believe that a wholesale removal of the article is the recommended action for the opinions given Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Xenomorph[edit]

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

No evidence of and no claim made for notability. No external reliable sources about this fictional creature. LK (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Prometheus (2012 film) as a plot summary that duplicates content in that article. Jclemens (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alien (creature in Alien franchise): I would argue that this is a more appropriate redirect target as there is already a subsection set up for this there. Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Alien Morphs in the Alien Franchise - While I don't really see the article as irrelevant, given it's relation to a movie releasing globally on the nineteenth, this article does also suit as a fine redirect if it does get deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToxicReap (talk • contribs) 19:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Given uncontested sources Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Piccadilly Rats[edit]

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

Fails notability. Further, the author has stated that he has a connection with the band as their manager, and despite a friendly note from me has refused to declare his COI and has accused me of tampering with that article on my talk page. Suggest deletion of this article, although the band manager (whos also the author of this article, by his own admission) means well, Wikipedia is not the place to publicize your band. Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ 14:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are some source examples. Additional sources are available online. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Fitzpatrick, Katie (27 July 2016). "Cult busking band Piccadilly Rats to perform their first festival". Manchester Evening News. Retrieved 22 March 2017.
Abbit, Beth (17 April 2016). "The Piccadilly Rats took London by storm - here's the pictures to prove it". Manchester Evening News. Retrieved March 22, 2017.
Walters, Sarah (29 December 2016). "Piccadilly Rats star Ray Boddington WILL perform for Simon Cowell". Manchester Evening News. Retrieved 22 March 2017.
Corner, Natalie (28 September 2015). "Legendary Manchester band appear on Judge Rinder over a mankini malfunction". Mirror. Retrieved 22 March 2017.
Abbit, Beth (13 March 2016). "Piccadilly Rats dancer Tommy Trouble injured after falling from float during Manchester Irish parade". Manchester Evening News. Retrieved 22 March 2017.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There needs to be actual discussion for this to be deleted, if there is none, it will probably have to be closed as no consensus. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 13:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For the last time to invite comments on the sources mentioned above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yash^talk stalk 08:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was about to close this as no consensus due to lack of discussion and be done with it, but as it's just been relisted, I'll make my opinion official. Sources indicate local notability; in my opinion that's good enough. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 18:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Augustine Grant[edit]

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

There are no reliable sources showing notability. States work with other artist but there is nothing showing this. Reb1981 (talk) 07:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article provides no evidence of notability. I haven't tried searching for any, as it's unclear what the usual name of the subject is – "Ray Jacobs", "August Grant", or "Augustine Grant". Maproom (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I incorrectly tagged the page for speedy deletion because it is unsourced and the subject lacks any coverage in reliable sources. I maintain that the page be deleted for this exact reason. Meatsgains (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article does not make a substantial claim of musical notability. It isn't up to the community to find sources for an article that doesn't provide them. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to List of Baahubali characters. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kattappa[edit]

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

The character has little or no notability outside the film. None of the sources used in the article substantively talk about the character to establish its notability or to warrant a standalone article. This one clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:FICT. —Vensatry _(talk) 06:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Baahubali characters, once the list is created. If not, then Baahubali (franchise). --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable film character and article in long term. -Varmapak ^(talk) 06:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unnotable film character. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Baahubali characters as that appears to be an appropriate target/place for this character. Aoba47 (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notability outside of the film. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Baahubali characters. Though presently the character doesn't appear notable enough for a standalone article but the kind of buzz it has created for the film viewers a redirect would be appropriate. Just check the number of views this page receives. --Skr15081997 (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Opinion split between "keep" and "redirect". (non-admin closure) f e minist 01:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Diamond[edit]

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

A plastic surgeon that generates a lot of publicity due to prior participation in a TV show. Two AfDs closed as no consensus.

I've reviewed the sources presented at the AfD and I do not find the coverage substantial to warrant an encyclopedia entry. Many are based on self-promotional interviews, as in:

""For that week, I literally had people waiting until 2am for a consultation. The waiting room was filled 20 people-deep all day long," he recalls."

I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability does not go away with time. Two previous AFDs left it as a keep, so a third is not needed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- both the 2014 & 2016 AfDs closed as "No consensus", not as a "Keep". K.e.coffman (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Maier-Schwartz, Sagit (2013-05-29). "Bringing Beverly Hills Cosmetic Surgery to the Middle East". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Dr. Jason Diamond wasn't aware that his E! reality TV series Dr. 90210 was being aired on the other side of the planet. That is, until patients began arriving at his Beverly Hills office from all different parts of the Middle East. A facial specialist, Diamond was one of a group of prominent plastic surgeons featured on the show from 2005 through 2008. His new clientele included members of some of the most powerful and wealthiest Arab families in the world, including royalty from different countries in the region. They all wanted him to perform plastic surgery.
  Diamond treated these patients in the United States initially. Over time, though, they began to ask if he'd be willing to travel to provide his services for them and their families at home. Eventually he decided to give it a shot. It took a year to get his license there and to settle on a medical facility where he could operate, but he eventually settled at The American British Surgical and Medical Centre in Dubai, founded by British plastic surgeon Mendy Kahn.
2. Snead, Elizabeth (2013-07-26). "Why Hollywood's Plastic Surgeons Decamped to Dubai". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Dr. 90210 began titillating American viewers in 2004 with its salacious, sometimes gruesome look at the physical transformations of Beverly Hills' beauty-obsessed denizens through breast implants, reductions, face-lifts, rhinoplasties, liposuction and whitened smiles. Its tagline: "If you weren't born with it, buy it."
  After the E! show went dark in the U.S. in 2008, it continued to air in 22 other countries, including the United Arab Emirates. As a result, its stars have become hugely in-demand surgeons, with all of the attendant hoopla -- and additional business -- that comes with fame. "Anyone who has any kind of media exposure here is considered an A-list celebrity, not just a reality TV asshole," says Jason Diamond, Dr. 90210's former facial expert. He also is the ringleader of a 90210 plastic-surgeon posse that is part of a lucrative partnership with the American British Surgical & Medical Centre, a facility that brings U.S. and U.K. doctors to the Middle East, located on Abu Bakr Al Siddique Road in Dubai's Deira district.
  After being approached by the ABSAMC, Diamond, who specializes in noses and face-lifts, brought in other former 90210 docs including Kevin Sands, the Kardashians' family dentist who also has created winning grins for Charlie Sheen, Miley Cyrus, Kanye West, Emma Stone, Robert Downey Jr. and Britney Spears.
3. Carrington, Daisy (2014-09-05). "Dubai, the world's plastic surgery hub". CNN. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Dr. Jason Diamond knows what it's like to be sought after. The Beverly Hills plastic surgeon -- first made famous by reality show "Dr. 90210" -- has operated on a range of A-list celebrities (though he declines to name them). Yet even he was unprepared for the clamor that met him when he first visited Dubai in what was meant to be a one-time gig as a guest surgeon.
  "For that week, I literally had people waiting until 2am for a consultation. The waiting room was filled 20 people-deep all day long," he recalls.
  That was in 2009. Since, Diamond has returned to the city every two to three months as part of a partnership with the American British Surgical and Medical Centre. Over the years, he has enlisted the Who's Who of Beverly Hills surgeons to join him at the practice.
4. Corwin, Tom (2008-04-27). "'Dr. 90210' star sees job changing". The Augusta Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
  This article quotes Diamond extensively.
5. Zain, Asma Ali (2010-10-27). "Celebrity plastic surgeon to start practice in Dubai". Khaleej Times. Archived from the original on 2017-04-18. Retrieved 2017-04-18.
  The article notes:
  
  A renowned plastic surgeon and reality TV star from the famous ‘Dr 90210’ show, Dr Jason Diamond, has chosen Dubai as his first overseas destination upon huge demand.
  The plastic surgeon, who currently practises in Beverly Hills and says he has treated Arab royalty, is expected to complete his licensing formalities in Dubai by next week and start practising at the American British Surgical and Medical Centre by November.
  ...
  Dr Jason’s stay in Dubai each month will depend on the number of procedures he is performing for duration of 10 days after the last patient has been operated upon.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jason Diamond to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A California plastic surgeon can be a V.I.P., can have revenues bigger than some countries, is economically, socially, entertainmently and otherwise significant. A Beverly Hills one is even more important. And they had a TV show! Keep. And per Graeme Bartlett, keep. And per Cunard, keep. --do ncr am 05:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete just another semi-celebrity doctor. This is just an advertisement, not a NPOV WP article. And it only can be advertisement b/c there are insufficient independent RS with significant discussion of this person. Yes a lot of surgeons are rich. Doesn't make them notable. Very strange arguments being made here. Jytdog (talk) 05:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources provided are reliable and verifiable and provide the type of broad coverage that establishes notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ping participants of the prior AfDs: @Johnpacklambert, DGG, JamesBWatson, Bearian, Green Cardamom, Alansohn, SwisterTwister, Unscintillating, Lemongirl942, and Bonadea: to help reach a consensus. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially advertising. NOT ADVOCACY is a mouch more basic criterion than problems about notability--if it's advertising ,we shouldn't even be considering it. The sources are also advertising, as the quotes from them above makes obvious. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources and no sources have been provided to demonstrate that The Atlantic, The Hollywood Reporter, or CNN are publishing advertising about Jason Diamond.
Cunard (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

we judge the reliability of sources by examining them. using our judgment. It's not like writing an article, that needs references. If the Atlantic writes an advertorial, like the one here, judge what it is by reading it. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To gain a clear consensus;given the last set of pings.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dr. 90210. All notability is related to his appearance on the show, and I agree everything else appears to be advertorial. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Claims of advocacy is an opinion I can't understand. The article has been written by and gone over by many veteran editors with no connection to the doctor. No one here is advertising for or on behalf of the doctor. Nor is there evidence the sources themselves are not independent. -- GreenC 15:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of all the prior keep arguments which are better than the delete !votes. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 18:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dr. 90210. While sources have been found, they all stem from the show. All 5 of the above examples deal with his relation to the tv show, absent that relationship, he gets written about in zero of those articles. Without the show, he has no independent notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The sources do not stem from the TV show Dr. 90210, which ran from 2004 to 2008. Four articles cited above were published in 2010, 2013, 2013, and 2014. The articles stem from his work as a plastic surgeon in the Middle East in Dubai. The articles discuss how he previously appeared on the TV show.
That the articles were published years after the TV show ended and are focused on his plastic surgeon work in Dubai indicates that it would not editorially make sense to redirect his article to Dr. 90210, which per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight would be unable to cover his Dubai work.
Cunard (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dr. 90210 or Delete - Onel5969 really nailed it, he has no SIGNIFICANT coverage outside of that show. The rest is just self-promotion and brief mentions. LAroboGuy (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jillian Clare#Biography. (non-admin closure) f e minist 03:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To The Beat![edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:NMOVIE. The only independent source I can find is the linked MTV article, which mentions it in passing. A Google search doesn't bring anything else up. bojo | talk 01:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you have not checked the page again....there are now four independent articles, two of which are solely about the film. I did a search as well on google and all you have to do is add "film 2017" in your search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.38.36.44 (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like this film is still in production, given the posts on their Facebook page. This could probably redirect to Jillian_Clare#Biography, after a sentence or two is added about her directing this film, but it doesn't seem to be ready for Wikipedia just yet. The sources on the page are OK, but not in depth enough to really show enough notability to pass WP:NFF. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 09:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (temporarily) to Jillian_Clare. I did some work on the original article to bring in more into line with MOS:FILM but it appears simply too soon for a separate article. Facts in the article are verifiable, but in it lacking enough coverage WP:NF is failed (for now). Allow a return once we have more. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Singer Dinker[edit]

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

Non notable person. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if the subject is non-notable in your opinion CAPTAIN RAJU, why not nominate for speedy deletion via A7? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete purely promotional article (and possible autobiography) for a person that has neither sources nor search results to pass WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Hogg[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Delete~~--Pediaorg (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Routine sports coverage is insufficient to meet WP:GNG and none of his hockey accomplishments meet WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tatum Langton[edit]

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

unremarkable actress Mjbmr (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please see my note at another AfD started by this user. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NACTOR; roles are all minor. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.

Despite a few keep-!votes, consensus is clear that this disambig page is not only unnecessary but might potentially be problematic as well. A hatnote can serve the same purpose and if another Banco de Ponce article is created and the disambig page needed again, recreating it is not a problem. Regards So Why 12:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Banco de Ponce (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unnecessary disambiguation per WP:2DABS. Orphan. Primary topic links to other entry in a hatnote. This is a non-exceptional orphan 2DABS page (of which there are very many) but is at AfD as a test case. Such pages are often PRODed, and then deleted by admins citing WP:G6. user:Doncram (a long-standing and IMO a respected editor) has declined the PROD and put a "Do not delete" notice on the Talk page (as the user has done on other non-exceptional 2DABS pages). I PRODed the page because WP:2DABS says the page "may be deleted if, after a period of time no additional ambiguous topics are found to expand the disambiguation page". The PROD was independently seconded by user:Boleyn. Template:Only two dabs had been applied by user:Tavix in September 2016 so I judge it unlikely that there are other ambiguous topics (I have looked and found none). This page should be deleted under current guidance, and then either WP:2DABS guidance needs to be reinforced or changed: probably no-one wants AfD entries for declined PRODs for orphan 2DABs pages. (There was a lengthy, inconclusive, discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 46#Proposal: keep two-item dab pages). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thank you for notifying me and for linking to the past proposal (which got archived rather than closed). The disambiguation page is an orphan, as most are; disambiguation pages should mostly not have inbound links (an exception being from "See also" of other dab pages). About this and other 2-item disambiguation pages, and where hatnotes between the two articles exist, in my opinion there need not be any link to the disambiguation page from the articles (perhaps that requires a change in bureaucratic policy, i am not sure). If/when sufficient more items get added to the disambiguation page (and here I have the impression in this case that there exist other Banco de Ponce branches which can be listed in the future possibly) so that hatnotes between the pages become unwieldy, only then does the disambiguation page get linked from any non-disambiguation mainspace article. There's no cost to readers; they pretty much cannot find their way to the disambiguation page. However it would be linked from "See also" at, say, "Banco de Pence (disambiguation)" if such existed, and the like. Keeping the disambiguation page hurts no one and has us further developed. Its Talk page and edit history keep the record of debates about whether certain items are partial matches or not, and about redlink topics and so on, and about AFDs about the disambiguation page. If the disambiguation page is deleted there is no gain, and some cost (on a good percentage of the cases) where the disambiguation page is recreated in the future. If this one happens to be a low traffic topic where few I.P. editors are coming and adding partial matches or redlinks or whatever, great, but the value of keeping the disambiguation page is higher the more churn there has been. Fight forgetting boring info about what disambiguation is needed, or possibly needed if only something else happens like a redlink being created in context in some article per requirement of wp:DABRL. Fight churn, which turns off prospective and experienced editors. Fight against fights to delete stuff for no purpose! --do ncr am 05:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TWODABS. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Unnecessary disambiguation per WP:2DABS. LibStar (talk) 06:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect, plausible search term for anyone who doesn't know how many notable entities there are called "Banco de Ponce". No need to create WP:Linkrot Siuenti (씨유엔티) 07:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See also Banco_Crédito_y_Ahorro_Ponceño Siuenti (씨유엔티) 07:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per TWODABS. I strongly disagree with Doncram – we should not keep garbage around just because there might be some future use for it; either demonstrate now that there are other Bancos de Ponce worth disambiguating, or lose it. I can understand extreme inclusionism of encyclopedic material, but not keeping around useless utility pages like this one – there is a reader inconvenience and maintenance cost (lot of it has already been wasted on prods and this Afd). No such user (talk) 07:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reader inconvenience and maintenance cost being what exactly? No-body forced anyone to prod or afd this article, it was sitting there being slightly useful quite happily. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 07:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TWODABS. Any user typing Banco de Ponce (disambiguation) into the search box will necessarily, during that process, type in Banco de Ponce and thereupon will see that Banco de Ponce and Banco de Ponce (building) are both articles. Since there is nothing else to disambiguate, the disambiguation page doesn't serve any necessary purpose. WP:NOHARM is on its own hardly a compelling argument to keep or to delete a page. Cnilep (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. That's just wrong, I just tried it. Anyway not everyone has Javascript enabled, and the search box is not the only navigation method in the world. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 09:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not only unnecessary, but also potentially damaging. If another editor creates Banco de Ponce (Ambridge), they are likely to see the hatnote at Banco de Ponce and add their new article to that hatnote. The orphan dab page then becomes incomplete, and misleading to anyone who finds it. If, on the other hand, they find the dab page first, they will add their new article to it and not to the hatnote at the primary topic, which then becomes unhelpfully incomplete. Either way leads to problems for the reader. So a redundant dab page like this is a negative. Redirect it to the primary topic, or just delete. If a third (perhaps) or fourth (definitely) ambiguous topic appears, the dab page can easily be reconstructed and the hatnote on the primary topic amended accordingly. PamD 08:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why would anyone create Banco de Ponce (Ambridge) ? is it a thing? should we be imagining it's a thing? And if you think "redirect to the primary topic" is acceptable why is your vote plain "delete"? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 09:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Siuenti: Banco de Ponce (Ambridge) is an imaginary new bank set up in the setting of the longest-running radio soap in the world. Take it to mean "Any third ambiguous title". And I really have no strong view whether delete or redirect would be better, as long as we don't have a duplicated set of disambiguation links in hatnote and dab page. PamD 12:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So like Banco de Ponce (Milla de Oro) or Banco de Ponce (San Juan)? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 14:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's interesting that these pages are apparently being deleted under "WP:G6" (uncontroversial maintenance) when "there was a lengthy, inconclusive, discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 46#Proposal: keep two-item dab pages)" which doesn't make it look terribly uncontroversial. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 09:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is your typical WP:TWODABS situation. It's easily solved with a hatnote which makes the disambiguation page unnecessary. No need to make this a big deal. -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: It may be unnecessary but it's still valuable if you don't know how many notable Xs there are - you might expect that the hatnote is going to take you to the disambiguation page anyway and want to skip that step. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 14:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Siuenti: please stop badgering every !voter. I obviously disagree, hence my !vote. It's counter-productive to hatnote to a disambiguation page when there's only one other topic. The hatnote can bypass the dab and lead directly to the other topic, saving a step. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote, it's a !vote, so the fact that you disagree is not important, your reasoning is. I didn't say hatnote to a disambiguation page (assuming no other entries are added), I said either redirect the disambiguation page to the other page or leave it as it is. Either of these things save a step for someone who searches for the dab page. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 21:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving it as is would violate WP:TWODABS. Is there a closely related disambiguation page this can be redirected to? -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TWODABS. A disambiguation page is merely a navigational device. Where that function can be performed by a hatnote, a disambiguation page is superfluous. I would note, however, that this is not necessarily a reason to hunt down and delete every existing two-link disambiguation page with one link being a clear primary topic, as those resources are probably better applied elsewhere. Since this page happens to have been nominated, it should be deleted, and pages like this should generally not be created. bd2412 T 12:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@BD2412: What is your objection to redirecting? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 14:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting to what? A "Foo (disambiguation)" redirect should only point to an actual disambiguation page, or else its existence becomes a source of confusion in itself. bd2412 T 01:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep I agree with doncram on this. Keeping the page is harmless and may have some benefit. WP:TWODABS specifically says that in this case, "then a disambiguation page is not needed" (that doesn't mean it's not allowed). MB 13:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TWODABS. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment user:Siuenti (asked above to "stop badgering") has just made an edit which, in my opinion, is not only unnecessary in the context of the dab page (the first entry is a link to the existing primary topic; the second is an optional See also), but actively unhelpful to this AfD being of an exemplar 2DABS page. I am not going to revert it because that might not be correct conduct as nominator of this AfD but future commenters should be aware of the version of the page under discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sure they were goof daith additions and it is important we look for additional entries. However, I felt both were invalid and have removed them, as neither of them are called, or commonly known as, Banco de Ponce. Boleyn (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've seen dabs like this kept, other entries added over time, and no one knows, because the primary topic doesn't link there. If there was no page, then the person who added them to the dab would have seen that, and made it a double hatnote or created a dab. Retaining this could cause possible confusion and if more emerge in the future (unlikely), it would take seconds to re-create a dab. Boleyn (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per doncram. The real problem is the validity and blind acceptance of TWODABS as a rationale for change. Loopy30 (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guess. Neither topic is very popular. The bank gets 7 hits a day, the building 3. They're actually pretty close as you can see here. And some of the hits on the bank may be be people looking for the building. Even so, I suppose the bank is the primary topic, I guess. That being so, hatnotes will do the trick. The dab page would have no incoming links and thus no purpose and is is just cruft, and somebody wants to clean it up, let them. No prejudice against recreation if a third meaning for Banco de Ponce is found. Herostratus (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A dab page in this instance serves no purpose. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. While even the nominator mentions the subject passing GNG, there is no consensus whether this is actually the case here. Despite relisting, no further extensive discussion has happened on this question. That said, since much of the coverage was regarding the mayoral election and a minor scandal, consensus might change in a few months if it becomes clear that further coverage will not happen. So Why 12:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shneur Odze[edit]

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

A candidate is not considered wikipedia notable until they win office. He passes WP:GNG as there are press reports about him but he has no other qualification to have a life story here. The whole page is mostly scandal, unless he wins office I respectfully suggest we get rid of this till then. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Govindaharihari (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not primarily about him as a candidate. It is about him as a politician. Rathfelder (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between "candidate" and "politician" here being...what, exactly? Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see him as- or how he can be- a politician until he is elected to something. At the moment he is a rabbi with an unfortunate? habit of putting his foot in it. Suggest this is stubbed of the attacks and negativity. Of course that would then leave about three lines. Having said that, passing WP:NPOL requires being a Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage; the question is the definition of 'major'; but there's certainly coverage. Equally, as Govindaharihari points out, being an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". So, not so much NPOL, but WP:ANYBIO is the vital policy at the end, as those its similar criteria. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with above. Without winning any elected position I'm inclined to suggest deletion | MK17b | (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Odze is a formerly elected Conservative councilor for Hackney. This is referenced. Roflcoptercrash (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." are notable. He has had lots of coverage. Mostly for the wrong reasons. But he is notable. The policy is not that only those who are elected are notable - otherwise UKIP would have none.Rathfelder (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find the fact that his latest scandal (his most significant which includes coverage by major press) has been deleted. Sounds like more of a cover-up than merely adhering to Wiki's rules of notability Roflcoptercrash (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well; thanks very much for the assumption of good faith, there, Roflcoptercrash. Anything else you'ld like to accuse your fellow editors of...? — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 20:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, it has been mentioned that this individual is subject to current scandal, however these are well referenced occurrences and I question the motivation of these being removed when they cover the most notable event.Roflcoptercrash (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references are from multiple independent reliable sources and have in depth coverage. It meets WP:GNG. --Rogerx2 (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Firstly, despite what Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi says, WP:NPOL does apply. Criteria 3. explicitly mentions "unelected candidate for political office". This is our current consensus. Secondly, while tabloid sleaze should be kept out, well-sourced but negative information, such as his refusal to shake hands with female candidates and voters or his decision to burn religious books is perfectly appropriate. AusLondonder (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondoner: if you could just clarify your remarks to indicate that at no point did I say it didn't apply; merely that it was not necessarily so. Cheers, — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 00:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify you stated that your personal opinion was that "I don't see him as- or how he can be- a politician until he is elected to something". AusLondonder (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. That would be that word 'personal' again. My personal opinion. A personal opinion of mine. Etc. Whereas the rest of my comment makes it clear that both pages are relevant. Cheers — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Odze appears to have just as good a claim to be a UKIP politician as most of those in Category:UK Independence Party politicians. The policy is not to exclude all candidates from notability just because they are candidates. Rathfelder (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:BASIC.--TM 02:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's all primary sources. Don't force this fringe interpretation of news-reports-are-secondary-sources on everyone until you can convince the professional historians that they've been wrong. Nyttend (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is one primary source - details of his election result in Hackney. We regularly accept such sources for Category:Council elections in England. All the others are secondary sources. But the quality of the sources is not relevant to the issue of notability. Notability is a quality of the subject, not the article.

Rathfelder (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, he certainly fails WP:NPOL on the political side. On the other hand, we have; otherwise non-notable politician does a heap of stupid things -> newspapers like printing stories about politicians doing stupid things -> doing some stupid things generates some news sources. I'm not sure if a claim to notability based on idiocy is a good one, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 09:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as the subject has been covered directly and in detail by multiple media sources [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] and therefore meets the GNG. If the article itself has problems then these can be addressed as per WP:RUBBISH or WP:EASYTARGET. Amisom (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the nominator says this passes WP:GNG it should never have been nominated. Gab4gab (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There are weblinks mostly reporting his controversies but this is (supposed to be) a life story of a notable person, and is isn't there, he has a councillors position for a small time, this is not a notable position in itself. Today he recieved less than two percent of the vote for mayor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Manchester_mayoral_election,_2017#Results - all that leaves is the minor controversies of a person that attempted a political life that did not mature, leaving what is basically an attacking report of a minor person holding no political position and no other noteworty biopgraphical position, that is why I nominated it. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  What does that have to do with the WP:GNG? Amisom (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The GNG is not a god, you have to look at all of wikipedia policies and carefully consider content about living people. As you can see, a couple of very experianced editors have responded in agreement with my interpretation. User:Nyttend is an administrator and has been an editor since more than ten years with over a quarter of a million edits. User:Black Kite is a respected long term admin with a lot of experiance as well. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, GNG is not a god & you have to consider other policies and such. However, if a subject passes GNG there's no point in searching out some other notability guidelines it might fail. (A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline , or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guidelines; and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.) Notability is a requirement for the subject of the article, not the article content per WP:NNC. So it's fine to mention that this subject held a councillors position and other details about his life. This doesn't seem to qualify as an attack page eligible for speedy delete so as Amisom suggests there are ways to fix content problems without deletion. Of course we're all entitled to our opinions whether they agree with other famous, powerful and/or highly respected editors or not. Gab4gab (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      
      @Govindaharihari: Can I quote from WP:N for a moment? A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline. That's what our notability guideline says. So while I understand that you don't like this article, I feel you need to provide some stronger reasoning for why this should be one of those exceptional cases in which we override the GNG. Amisom (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note also, apart from the weblink scandals he has no other notablility, being a Conservative councillor for two years is not a qualification for notability here. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I argue in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Plummer, I feel like being an elected council-member in England should be considered notability, or at least the situation is ambiguous enough to keep articles on candidates in this year's general election. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This person - Shneur Odze is not a candidate in this year's general election. Candidates are just not notable, never have been here. Govindaharihari (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot show and properly source that he was already eligible for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not merely run in it, to get a Wikipedia article because election per se. Serving on a borough council, however, is not grounds for notability in and of itself — a person would have to serve on the citywide London Assembly, not just the borough council of Hackney, to get a Wikipedia article just for serving in a local political office.
And the sourcing here is not adequate to claim that he passes WP:GNG, either — there are too many primary sources, routine election results tables, and glancing namechecks of his existence in news articles about other things, and the number of sources which are genuinely both reliable and substantively about him is simply not high enough to pass GNG — every candidate in any election could always show the number of sources shown here, so those sources are not showing him to be more notable than the norm. Christine O'Donnell, who got flayed alive by an international media firestorm, is the textbook case for how much coverage of a person's candidacy it takes to clear GNG because campaign coverage in and of itself, and this doesn't even approach a fraction of enough. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: Did you look at the sources I pasted above? A lot of them were direct profiles of this particular person and his own personal journey. Amisom (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Direct profiles of this particular person and his own personal journey", which are (a) being written specifically in the context of his candidacy for an office he didn't win, and (b) no different from what any candidate for any office in any election whatsoever could always show that they'd received. So no, they're not providing any special notability boost, because they don't constitute strong evidence that his non-winning candidacy was more notable than all of the other non-winning candidates' candidacies were. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But you're making up a rule that doesn't exist. The GNG requires significant coverage, not 'significant coverage unrelated to the main thing the subject is notable for', or 'more coverage than other people in the field'... Amisom (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not making up a rule that doesn't exist. Every candidate for any political office would always clear GNG if a few pieces of campaign-related coverage was all you had to show to get them there — such coverage, accordingly, falls under WP:ROUTINE, and does not show notability in and of itself unless it explodes to a volume far out of proportion to what could merely be expected to exist. GNG is a general principle, not an objective test — it leaves a lot of room for debate about how much coverage is enough to clear it, because it doesn't quantify any clear benchmarks. So you can't just say that an article has to be kept just because the letter of GNG is technically met — as I've said many times, if all we had to do to get a person over GNG was show that two or three pieces of media coverage exist, and we didn't care about the context in which it was given, then we would have to keep an article about the woman a mile down the road from my parents who got into the papers a few years ago for finding a pig in her front yard.
So AFD has established consensuses about what types of coverage do or don't count toward meeting it, and how much of the correct type of coverage has to be shown in any given situation. And the established consensus around people who have run for but never won an NPOL-passing office is that either (a) they must be shown to have already been notable enough for an article before running as a candidate, or (b) the candidacy coverage has to get close to the sheer volume and nationalized or internationalized range that Christine O'Donnell got. Not because I said so, but because a broad consensus of Wikipedia editors decided that in many past AFD discussions about whether or not non-winning candidates for political office cleared GNG on the basis of campaign-related coverage itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable because he is an orthodox Jew who is a very active member of UKIP. That gives rise to a lot of interesting contradictions, which are explored in the articles about him. Most of the coverage is in Jewish publications. When he was a Conservative councillor he was not interesting and nobody wrote about him. He is not excluded from notability because he has been a candidate. Rathfelder (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Disclaimer, User:Rathfelder created this biography (sadly) less than two weeks ago - 22:12, 30 April 2017‎ Rathfelder (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,215 bytes) (+5,215)‎ . . (←Created page with 'Shneur Odze, born March 3, 1981, is a UK Independence Party politician and a member of Chabad-Lubavitch. He is a rabbi in Broughton, Salford.<ref>{{...') (thank) - Govindaharihari (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A person who doesn't clear any normal notability standard does not get a special inclusion freebie just because his political affiliations happen to run counter to conventional expectations of their personal identity politics — unelected gay Republicans or Jewish ukippers with no other strong claim of notability do not get Wikipedia articles just because the phrases "gay Republican" or "Jewish ukipper" might seem like oxymorons to some people. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article creator claim that "He is notable because he is an orthodox Jew who is a very active member of UKIP" just about says it all, that is not a reason under wp:policies and guidelines to have wikipedia host what is basically an attack page about a living person and supports delete. The elections over, he got less than 2 percent of the vote, he holds no political office, he has no actual notability, lets just get rid of this sorry life story of a "what is he actually" (a failed candidate) person. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the article creator's claim that being an Orthodox Jew in UKIP makes Mr Odze notable is not a reason under WP:PAG. But, @Govindaharihari:, the fact that he got <2% of the vote is also not a reason under WP:PAG (or, if I'm mistaken about that, please quote the policy in question). Amisom (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is clearly a person of great interest to the Jewish community in the UK - multiple independent reliable sources - even before the stuff published by the Daily Mail.Rathfelder (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Lets just move on, the elections over, he got less than 2 percent of the vote - Sadly , (well not sadly really) he is a flash in the pan person with stupid weblinks without any continuing note. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  Which policy are you basing this 'less than 2%' argument on? Amisom (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - He holds no positiohn that fulfills wikipedias notability guidelines, the election is over, he got less that two percent of the vote - lets move on, there is now no reason at all to have a biography hosted about him here Govindaharihari (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Except you agree that he does meet one of Wikipesia's notability guidances? GNG Amisom (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A candidate for office does not clear GNG on campaign-related coverage itself, unless and until that campaign coverage explodes far out of proportion to what is routinely expected to always exist for all candidates. The number of sources shown here simply doesn't pass that test. Bearcat (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but (a) the nominator disagrees with you and accepts that the article meets the GNG; and (2) WP:ROUTINE is nothing to do with the GNG, it is part of WP:N(E) which is one of the subject-specific guidelines that are alternatives to the GNG. Amisom (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ROUTINE covers off whether certain classes of sourcing, in certain contexts, count toward meeting GNG or not. It's not a question of one having nothing to do with the other, and SNGs are not alternatives to GNG — they always both have to be met in tandem, by virtue of GNG-worthy sourcing existing in a context that simultaneously satisfies an SNG. (And yes, a topic can also technically pass an SNG, and still get deleted if the reliable source coverage just isn't there to properly verify their passage of the SNG.) So it's not one or the other, except occasionally in highly specialized cases where the volume of coverage is just so whompingly massive that there's just no serious case to be made that a person doesn't qualify as special (which this situation doesn't really meet). Tt's both together, not GNG or an SNG — SNGs exist to clarify what counts as a claim of notability, while GNG exists to clarify what an article has to do to ensure that the SNG is properly satisfied.

As I've already said: if this volume of directly campaign-related coverage were enough in and of itself to get an unelected candidate for office over GNG just because coverage exists, then we would always have to keep an article about every single person who ever ran for any office in any election whatsoever. The only way a candidate can ever clear GNG on campaign coverage alone is if that coverage explodes to a volume that marks him as significantly more notable than the norm. The volume of coverage shown here is merely the normal volume of coverage that every candidate for any office always gets — but we do not accept every candidate as notable on this volume of coverage. We accept candidates as notable because candidacy only if the sourcing shows them to be significantly more notable than the norm for unelected candidates. But that condition is not being met by this sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

<SNGs are not alternatives to GNG — they always both have to be met in tandem, by virtue of GNG-worthy sourcing existing in a context that simultaneously satisfies an SNG. OK, but that's precisely the opposite of what WP:N says: A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline (my emphasis). Your reference to WP:ROUTINE shows that the article doesn't meet the SNG for events (and it would be rather odd if it did since the subject is not an event). The article also doesn't meet the SNG for politicians. Nobody has made any policy-based argument to say that the article doesn't meet the GNG - and indeed the nominator agrees that it does. Amisom (talk) 06:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ROUTINE is a question of the context in which the coverage is being given, not a question of what class of topic the subject happens to be. An election is an event, so coverage of a person in the context of an election most certainly falls squarely under WP:ROUTINE. Bearcat (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. WP:EVENT (and all the content on that page, including the section entitled "Routine coverage") is about whether or not events are notable for their own article. This article, Shneur Odze, si about a person, not an event. So WP:EVENT is not at all germane, so WP:ROUTINE is not at all germane. If WP:ROUTINE was part of the WP:GNG, it would be included in that guideline. It isn't, so it's not. Stop this. Amisom (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:ROUTINE most definitely is about the context in which the coverage is being given, regardless of whether the subject is a person, a place, a thing, an event or an animal. Note, for example, that ROUTINE does list things such as 'wedding announcements", "crime logs" and "local person wins award" — types of coverage where the context is a routine event but the subject of the "coverage" is a person — as examples of routine coverage that doesn't aid notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does WP:ROUTINE appear as a subsection of WP:EVENT, a subject-specific guideline which is an alternative to the GNG? Amisom (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because the context in which the person is receiving the routine coverage is an event: a wedding, a minor local award presentation, an election, the commission of a non-notable crime, and on and so forth. And again, SNGs are not an alternative to passing GNG — for one thing, we quite regularly see the creation of articles where the claim of notability is hype-inflated well past the truth (e.g. musicians always ascribe "hit" status to their current single in their public relations materials regardless of whether or not it was ever actually a hit on any chart we accept as a notability claim in a musician's article), or outright hoax articles about topics that actually don't exist at all. So it's not the claim to passing an SNG that gets an article kept, but the degree to which we can or can't verify, in reliable sources that meet GNG, that passage of the SNG is true — the SNG clarifies what the article has to say to have a valid and keepable claim of notability, while the GNG clarifies what the article has to do to ensure that the claim of notability is properly supported.

And conversely, if a person has no claim to passing any SNG, and instead you're shooting for "notable because media coverage exists", then there has to be a lot more media coverage than this: Christine O'Donnell, an example that's been pointed out several times above, contains 166 citations, covering her in such depth that her article is actually longer than that of the guy who actually passed NPOL by winning the election against her. That is an article that passes GNG because media coverage despite lacking any actual claim to passing any SNG — because the media coverage exploded far out of proportion to what could be regularly and routinely expected to exist for an election candidate.

As I've already pointed out and you've failed to acknowledge or address at all, when the subject is a non-winning election candidate you can't just go "media coverage exists, ergo GNG met", because every candidate in any election always gets as much media coverage as has been shown here. To get over GNG on campaign coverage alone, the coverage has to mark the candidate out as significantly more notable than the thousands of other people who also got the same amount of coverage for being candidates — to count as a GNG pass in and of itself, campaign-specific coverage has to show a credible argument why he could be considered a special case who's more notable than the norm for an unelected candidate. Bearcat (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SNGs are not an alternative to passing GNG. Well, WP:N explicitly says that they are, and I'm afraid I trust that page more than I trust you.

To get over GNG on campaign coverage alone, the coverage has to mark the candidate out as significantly more notable than the thousands of other people who also got the same amount of coverage. That isn't what WP:GNG says. It says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list," and goes on to define 'significant coverage' as follow: "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

So both of those points, on which your argument rely, are based on wrong interpretation of the guideline. If you want to amend the guideline to say what you want it to say, you can start a proposal to that affect. But in the meantime, I am going to engage with this afD based on what the actual guideline says not based on what you wish it say. Amisom (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm completely correct on both counts. As I've already pointed out above and you've failed to acknowledge or address, Wikipedia policy statements are deliberately written generically as general principles, and avoid explicitly quantifying the volumes required: for the latter point, you have to familiarize yourself with established AFD consensus around how GNG is deemed to apply in practice. You can't just assert that the letter of GNG is met, because that could always be asserted for anybody who ever got their name into the newspaper for any reason whatsoever.

If GNG were automatically passed the moment a small handful of media coverage existed at all, regardless of whether the person actually had a notability claim that would pass any SNG or not, then the list of topics we would have to start keeping articles about the moment two or three pieces of media coverage existed would include: every non-winning candidate for any democratically elected office; presidents of church bake sale committees; elementary school parent teacher associations; teenagers who tried out for their high school football team despite being amputees; and the woman a mile down the road from my parents who woke up one morning and found a pig in her yard. Media coverage exists for a lot of things that we don't accept as notable just because that coverage exists — so AFD's consensus is that if a person has no claim of notability that would satisfy an SNG, then a "notable per GNG anyway because media coverage exists" does require a lot more media coverage than has been shown here.

I've already pointed out above: this has zilch to do with my opinions, and even less to do with what I wish Wikipedia's standards were: AFD has well-established consensuses around how GNG applies in cases of debate, and I'm simply and correctly explaining what the established consensus is when the subject is an unelected candidate for political office: a GNG claim requires the coverage to mark the candidate out as more notable than the norm, because every candidate for any office could always cite as many sources as this article does. The path to getting a non-winning candidate over GNG on campaign coverage alone is that significantly more campaign coverage exists than would be routinely expected to exist. And that's not me expressing a personal opinion, either: that's thousands of prior AFDs establishing that as the accepted consensus. Bearcat (talk) 12:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to a sample of the "thousands" of prior AfDs so I can learn more then please. Amisom (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians/archive. HTH. Bearcat (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the AfD discussion regarding the 1st seven people on that archive, it looks like all of the 'delete" arguments were on the grounds of WP:GNG not being met, and the only person to argue that unseccessful election candidates had some sort of higher threshold for WP:SIGCOV was you, Bearcat. If you maintain that your interpretation of the consensus across "thousands" of AfDs is correct, please link to a couple where there was a clear consensus of people other than yourself takng this view. If not we're finished here. Amisom (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Not a single one of those discussions was one in which the failure to meet GNG resulted from media coverage failing to exist at all — although some of the articles were created by people who didn't put as much effort into them as other people do, all of those candidates actually did have, and could have cited, as much media coverage as this article shows. No candidate for any office in any election ever fails to be the subject of at least as much media coverage as this article shows — so if you could GNG a person on campaign coverage alone, then every candidate for any office in any election would always get an article. So the contradiction you perceive between my comments and other people's comments simply does not exist — not everybody used the same words, but all of the votes were based on the same principle: the failure to meet GNG was not because coverage of the candidates failed to exist, but because campaign coverage simply doesn't count toward GNGing an unelected candidate with no other claim of preexisting notability, except in very rarefied special cases on the order of Christine O'Donnell. And for the record, I get to decide when I'm done with this discussion, not you. Bearcat (talk) 13:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The concern is about a living person WP:BLP that although he has some weblinks talking about scandals about him, (qualifying him vaguely under WP:GNG - nine weblinks currently in the article are from his very recent attempt to win a wikipedia notable political position, but he didn't, failing so miserably, gaining less than 2 percent of the vote and he clears no other hurdle of wikipedia guidelines, he is not a notable politician, he holds no notable office and never has. After his recent failure to gain a notable office he is in regards to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines a nobody with attached scandals. WP:BLP suggests he should not have a biography, as I said at the start WP:GNG is not a god and needs to be considered in reflection with other guidelines and policy especially when we write about living people. It is also clear that he has no chance of winning any other wikipedia notable political office and there will be no continued coverage of him. 17:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Govindaharihari (talk)

Delete -- an unsuccessful candidacy & an a minor controversy do not encyclopedia notability make. There's nothing else there. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with K.e.coffman - fails NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But @Piotrus:, he doesn't have to meet WP:NBIO. The notability policy says quite clearly that meeting the GNG is sufficient. Amisom (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but I don't think he passes GNG. Being mentioned by media is not enough, the coverage has to be extensive. And what I see are few very small mentions of unsuccessful candidacy plus a minor scandal. Even adding them together I don't think that's enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - According to WP:GNG: "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

Many of the sources used as references in the article do meet that requirement as they are clearly more than trivial mentions like http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/who-are-manchester-mayor-candidates-12935286 and http://www.citymetric.com/politics/shneur-odze-orthodox-jewish-candidate-who-wants-be-ukips-first-manchester-mayor-2810 for example. A verifiable article could be written with the content from the reliable sources, so I agree with Amisom. It meets GNG. --Rogerx2 (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J.O. Modisette[edit]

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

non notable -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 00:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while likely a factor of when he lived, cannot find sources to establish notability StarM 00:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to have verifiable sources to qualify under WP:GNG or any applicable specific notability guideline. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is one really good source already referenced (the Information & Culture article). This reference looks like it would be useful, if anyone here has access to it. LadyofShalott 02:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn as the substance and sourcing have been beefed up significantly. Bearcat (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide Phillpotts[edit]

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

Biography of a person who's described as a writer, but completely fails to mention her actually writing anything that could even be measured for whether it actually passes WP:AUTHOR or not -- as written, what this article says is that Adelaide was born, her father discovered Agatha Christie, and then Adelaide died: the only person who wrote anything in this version of the story being Agatha Christie. From her father's biography, I'm able to glean that Adelaide was credited as the co-author of a couple of his works, but even then I had to go to his article to actually find that out because it's not being stated here at all -- and neither article contains much indication that she ever published any significant volume of work in her own right. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can actually add some actual content about her actually writing something, but as written this is basically "she lived, stuff happened to other people around her and then she died". So it's basically a WP:TNT situation -- even if she can be shown to pass AUTHOR for something, this version of the article isn't even trying to show it. Bearcat (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and it mentions that she is the ODNB which is seen as a touchstone of notability. This a WIP as noted in the first edit summary. Bit surprised by the enthusiasm for AFDing. There are better candidates. If I hadnt slept then there would be more in the article but I still contend that the notability is obvious. If all the text that is mentioned above was deleted then we would have a British author stub who is in the ODNB. That works for me. There are two articles about the film and the play she wrote. I suggest this is withdrawn now, as will not be successful and wastes time. I'm not posting here again unless invited Victuallers (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Writer with her own article in ODNB, therefore notable. It's unfortunate that the article was started with so much about Agatha Christie and so little about Ross/Phillpotts' own writing, but AfD should be about the topic, not the current state of the article. Clearly notable. PamD 08:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree with PamD - anyone with an ONDB article passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 10:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ODNB entry clinches it. The article needs improving and expanding to concentrate more on her achievements but nevertheless she passes GNG Neiltonks (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't know why some people insist on nominating an article for deletion within a couple of hours of its creation. A little patience would be neat. Roseohioresident (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree with PamD - anyone with an ONDB article passes WP:GNG, which makes me question whether the nominator checked the references given, or OUP list. To prove negative (non-notability) takes time and diligence- and four hours from creation to tagging- seems a little too hasty.ClemRutter (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator most certainly did check the reference, which led me not to any verification that she was reflected in it at all, but merely to a "pay for access" login screen which verified nothing whatsoever. When we're talking about an article which so clearly failed to actually contain any content that could actually have been drawn from an ODNB entry, and links-to-paywalls are easily faked as "supporting" content that isn't actually there at all, it was not and is not my job to simply presume that such content existed in the absence of any possible way to verify that — it was the creator's job to make a better article than this in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: What if the creating editor had cited the print version of ODNB? Not all sources are accessible to all editors. And the suggestion of faked links goes against AGF and looks more like a WP:PA for an article created by such an experienced Wikipedian. PamD 05:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A print-only citation would include other details, such as the actual publication details of the book, by which we could properly verify things about it regardless of having direct access or not — for example, with her surname beginning with the letter P, it would be not credible if the print-only citation claimed that her biography appeared on page 5 of the book. And a proper print-only citation to a biographical dictionary would also include the title of the specific entry being referenced — thus making it clear whether Adelaide actually had her own entry to support independent notability, or was just glancingly namechecked as a bit player in Eden's. Whereas a web URL that links only to a paywall splash page, and fails to actually directly verify so much as one comma of the content, is indistinguishable from the "find a random link that fails to actually support the content but makes it look properly referenced, and just pray to the god of your choice that nobody ever actually attempts to check it" class of referencing that used to routinely infect the various subpages of List of LGBT people before we imposed permanent page protection on them.

And any editor experienced enough to earn a presumption of good faith that they would never do such a thing is also, by definition, experienced enough to know that they have to put a lot more meat (e.g. an actual notability claim that would actually be measurable against a notability standard) into the text of the article than was even attempted here at first. In an article that looked and sounded that much like the "trying to flesh out a notable person's family genealogy by creating a separate page about every single relative of theirs whose name is locatable at all regardless of whether they actually have any standalone notability or not" class of articles that we see every once in a while, it's not my job to extend an editor more benefit of the doubt on a referencing uncertainty than the text of the article has earned.

That said, I see that the article has now been expanded with more substance and sourcing to support her notability properly, so I'm withdrawing this. But I'm not going to stand for suggestions that it was improper of me to express the doubts that I had with the content as it stood at the time of nomination. Bearcat (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stacee Myers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject fails WP:NACTOR. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:ENT. No lead or major roles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage aside from the sources listed in the article; roles are uncredited – 𝕘wendy | ☎ 19:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to provide basis for WP:N. Created numerous times - a salting candidate. reddogsix (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) f e minist 03:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Burano (building)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I researched here: Talk:Burano_(building)#research_for_notability --David Tornheim (talk) 01:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Like i just wrote at similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casa Condominio Residenza, content (48 stories, 149 meters tall?) in article suffices to establish it is a major thing, and in my opinion it is useful for many readers to have coverage over such a thing which affects so many lives. It's like this is a geographic feature, i don't care that it is man-made. This is just shorter than the current threshold to be included as an item in the List of tallest buildings in Toronto article, i guess, otherwise redirecting to a row in the list-article could be an alternative to deletion. So just keep. --do ncr am 02:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As, I wrote at the other article where you made the same claim: Please show me any standard for notability that has to do with size. How can you claim "it affects so many lives"? Do you have WP:RS for that? Why would it need to be in a list article if it is not notable? --David Tornheim (talk) 08:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC) --do ncr am 04:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major buildings such as this one are often notable. Firstly, it has the equivalent population of a small town — in itself, it is a named, significantly populated place. Secondly, a quick online search finds plenty of news stories that at least mention this building. Thirdly, I found that the first two storeys of the building have been designated as a heritage building under the Ontario Heritage Act, a notable and very unusual feature in a modern residential skyscraper. There has simply been a lack of effort in establishing notability in the article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacknstock: Please add the WP:RS that you found and mention the specific articles here. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator David Tornheim says he tried his best to comply with WP:BEFORE, prior to making the nomination. Sorry, I am going to agree with the other contributors, above, that nominator's efforts fell short.
Heritage buildings, where their heritage designation is documented, are generally likely to be notable, and the Burano is an example of facadism because the developers incorporated the facade of the 1925 building. ~~I can't imagine why nominator withheld this information from casual observers of this AFD.~~
I added a couple of the references. Geo Swan (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan I appreciate your effort to find new WP:RS. If it is good, I will withdraw the nomination. Perhaps, you know the sources better than I. However, please strike your claim that "I can't imagine why nominator withheld this information from casual observers of this AFD." WP:AGF and focus on content not editors. If you don't strike the claim I will add a warning to your talk page about "casting aspersions". --David Tornheim (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a withdrawal of the nomination. Was it good? Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I made this relevant post about the claimed WP:RS for more eyes on this subject: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Urbantoronto.ca --David Tornheim (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There's quite a lot of reliable information once I started digging, partly because of the heritage building at the base. The builders dismantled the historic facade and meticulously reconstructed it above a seven-floor underground parking lot. As for the article itself, we've gone from two sources to thirteen (just about to add the thirteenth), while increasing both accuracy and detail, with all facts verified. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your doing more research. This article about the issue of the dealership might might be considered toward notability. That don't sound as much like an advertisement as this article also from the same source (thestar.com) regarding the other building we have been discussing. However, it might be that McLaughlin_(automobile) motor car showroom is what is notable rather than the building in its former lot.

A number of the references you are adding are WP:PRIMARY sources, such as the document of the Toronto Design Guidelines from the Planning Dept [31], The Heritage impact statement, similar doc and developer's website. Probably all of that will have to go. I will post this on the article talk page too. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The architect that wrote the Heritage Impact Statement (E.R.A. Architects Inc.) was a third party, not the architect for the building. This is WP:INDEPENDENT rather than a WP:PRIMARY, as independent, third party opinion was required to satisfy the heritage conservation laws. Also, primary sources are allowed in WP, provided the editor is not providing interpretation: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." I have not added any interpretation or synthesis (i.e., WP:OR) in the article, only rephrasing to avoid copyright violation. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the potential notability and historical significance of the showroom, I made this post on WikiProject History:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject History#Notability historical buildings, structures, places, esp. w.r.t. historical plaques

--David Tornheim (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the plaque itself that is used as a source, but the article about the plaque. Again, this is not me visiting the building and taking a photo of the plaque (or perhaps artfully creating a picture of a non-existent plaque), but an independent source. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "article" with the plaque is a self-published website, written by a librarian rather than a historian. I very much doubt that meets our WP:RS requirements. See for example: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RS_for_WWII_--_ww2today.com_.3F which is also self-published website by someone who is not a historian. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Tornheim - here are the 338 page views for the three months preceding your nomination. That is about 100 page views per month. If I had written this article I would feel satisfied 100 people reading it, per month, was sufficient to show my time was well spent. I'd settle for 20 people per month.
You've made some minor challenges, as to whether some of the references are PRIMARY sources. You suggested that the PRIMARY references "will have to go". Jack N Stock pointed out that your suggestion that PRIMARY references "have to go" is not supported by policy. I support their point.
David Tornheim, in a community that is built on trust, I believe it is very important for us to openly acknowledge when we realize we made a mistake. I do my best to acknowledge whenI realize I was mistaken. I do my best to do so, even if my correspondent(s) have been unpleasant.
The wikipedia is a serious project, and I would like to be able to rely on my fellow wikipedia contributors to openly acknowledge when they realize they made a mistake. Even if you don't regard your efforts to comply with BEFORE as having fallen short, surely you realize your assertion that references "have to go" was a mistake? Would you please acknowledge that?
The note you left on Wikiproject History? Misleading. Your use of a piped link to Burano_(building)#McLaughlin_Motor_Car_Showroom was apt to make it look like the article you nominated for deletion was McLaughlin_Motor_Car_Showroom. Could you please fix that? Geo Swan (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who has been here since 2004 and has 90,000+ edits, and edited 25,000 unique pages,[32] I am baffled as to how you can be telling me liberal use of WP:PRIMARY sources rather WP:SECONDARY sources is totally fine, when that goes against the entire spirit of our WP:RS policy. Aren't you familiar with WP:OR?

If you want to make a note at Wiki Project History clarifying that there is no such article McLaughlin_Motor_Car_Showroom and that hence it is not be subjection to deletion, but instead a non-notable high rise condo building is what is being discussed instead, be my guest. I thought I was pretty clear. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meaningful discussion works best if we (1) respond to what our correspondents actually said, or (2) sometimes exercise good faith judgment, and tactfully respond to what we think they actually meant, while saying that is what we are doing. To be avoided is to respond to strawman arguments our correspondents didn't make, or to leap on a non-standard interpretation of their comment, that is easier to refute, when it is pretty clear they meant the mainline straight-forward meaning of their comment.
In this particular case I did not say PRIMARY sources are just as good as SECONDARY sources. Jack N Stock quoted you a passage about how PRIMARY sources should be used, that I agree was a good counter to your assertion that PRIMARY sources "have to go". PRIMARY sources supplement SECONDARY sources. That is what the wikidocument says, it is what Jack N Stock said, and what I said.
As to whether the Burano is a "non-notable high rise" -- weren't you already on the cusp of acknowledging that the Turnbull article established notability? Geo Swan (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I changed what I regarded as your misleading wording, as per your permission. Geo Swan (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record DT reverted my good faith edit, without addressing the wording that concerned me. Geo Swan (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added some references about the Burano building, and I also found THIS or THIS or THIS about the location's former use as an early automobile dealership.—Anne Delong (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the research. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: FYI,

Based on the recent feedback about WP:RS, I went ahead and created McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom. The later portion of the text still needs work.

Also, I just looked at this. When I saw the URL, I thought that was just a staff report or some other possibly transient paper at City Hall or Planning, but this looks to be more like a publication by the Planning Dept. for wide distribution. Because of that, but I think it is safe to call this document independent, secondary WP:RS. My search shows that in only mentions the building twice on pages 20 and 60. Based on that I am reconsidering changing my position. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Avoiding edit warring

As David Tornheim noted, above, he started McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom. He snipped considerable content, from Burano (building). But his edit summary does say he snipped it from Burano (building). Of course this means the Burano building article can't be deleted.

In this edit, prior to his content fork, I asked: "Well, when you came across the Turnbull reference, and other references that explained how the showroom was a notable heritage structure, during your compliance with BEFORE, why, in the name of Heck, didn't you start a talk page discussion where you suggested changing the article to be primarily focussed on the showroom, not the condo?"

Since DT hasn't really explicitly acknowledged this I am going to repeat a point I made above. His compliance with BEFORE fell short.

If he really thinks that there should be one article, one primarily about the showroom, not the highrise, I think that this should have been suggested, on Talk:Burano (building), instead of initiating an AFD. If he somehow missed the references that substantiated notability, but thought the article should be focussed on the showroom, not the highrise, wouldn't it have been appropriate to then withdraw the nomination, and suggested a name change, and focus change, on the talk page?

McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom, as currently written by DT, does not link to the Burano (building) article. Woah! Woah! Woah! Clearly these two articles are highly relevant to one another.

Currently both articles contain multiple key identical paragraphs.

There is a potential maintenance nightmare, when multiple articles contain identical instances of the same text. The instance in one article gets updated, while the instance(s) in other articles don't. So, we get dueling articles that offer dueling, inconstent material. That's bad.

This is not how we should cover closely related articles. The lion's share of coverage should go into the most closely related article. The other related articles should offer a brief description of what can be found at the article where the primary coverage is, followed by a wikilink to that article. And the coverage at that article should contain links to the other related articles. Not linking to relevant articles is a disservice to our readers.

The best way to prevent an edit-war is to not engage when you see another contributor editing in a way that is a potential trigger to an edit-war. If I were to edit the article DT created about the showroom; linked to the article on the highrise; added some appropriate content, about the highrise, that DT neglected to put in, am I risking being the second party to an edit-war?

The information about how the Burano developers had to disassemble the facade, brick by brick, numbered, warehoused, while new foundations were laid, and then reassembled, is extremely interesting.T copied that paragraph from the original article, into his fork, on the showroom. But this very rare disassembly took place AFTER the building was no longer a showroom. So, I think coverage of it belongs in the article on the highrise, not in the article on the showroom.

What if I snip the detailed coverage of the facade's disassembly from the article on the showroom, because I think it is already in the appropriate article, the article on the high-rise?

I am going to urge DT to stop editing either of these articles. Creation of a new article on the showroom was premature. Edits they make to the article on the highrise risk looking like attempts to subvert the AFD process. In return I won't edit the showroom article either. I will encourage anyone participating here, who isn't as involved as I am to add the missing links, and consider other fixes to the showroom article.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I already !voted Keep above. These developments make it clear the original topic is valid. IMO splitting the article at the same time as calling for the original to be deleted is invalid. Stealing material to undermine the original article is ridiculous. The article should be kept, probably at its original name, and should not be split unless or until it became too large by usual criteria for splitting (not yet met). After this AFD is closed (which should be by "Keep" decision), the article could possibly be moved to a different title by a wp:RM process. In general, if there are duplicative articles, the newest one should be merged into the older one, even if the new title is to be adopted (by move over the newer one), saving the older edit history. --doncram 01:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- - - Hey, I may have overstated things with my speaking of "Stealing material to undermine the original article". I confess I didn't actually check to see whether that seemed to have happened, and there's no proving what the intent was if material was moved from one to the other. I just got the impression that happened, but then David Tornheim speaks of false allegations below, which makes me worry. I'm sorry if I got it wrong in my characterization of intent here. But my recommendations stand, anyhow. --do ncr am 13:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- I think merge to Burano (building) is appropriate, saving the original edit history, with a redirect from McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom. Later, some sort of discussion about whether to move the merged article. Resolve this AFD first, WP:MERGEPROP second, WP:RM third. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- After some thought, I'm posting the merger proposal on the two pages and the talk pages for the benefit of any editors who are unaware of this discussion. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commment (with proposal): I was in the middle of responding to further false allegations against me, which frankly I getting tired of. However, rather than waste further time with that, let me propose this:

My Proposal: I will withdraw this WP:AfD, if all of you (Geo Swan, Jacknstock and doncram) agree not to attempt to merge or move either of these two buildings (Burano (building) and McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom) into one article and you also agree not to submit McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom to WP:AfD. If that condition is met, I in turn will also promise not to initiate a merge, move or AfD on either article. Can we agree?

And also, that Jacknstock removes the merger proposal he just put up.

I have put a lot of effort into making the new article a decent standalone article and I don't want my work wrecked by a merge, and I would like to save the record of the numerous edits I did made to the new article. I regret that I could not copy the Burano article history before I started, or I definitely would have, so that the edits Jacknstock made to the showroom would be visible. We had this exact same problem before in a parent/child article.

As for duplicative info., I don't see much a problem there, I am more than happy to make sure the Motor Car Show Room stuff matches in both. The two buildings have a sliver of shared history, but they are clearly not the same building. I think it is more helpful to readers to have separate articles with separate infoboxes, for which all the information is different (even the locations are slightly different, since the highrise is set back, I have a hunch the the Burano has a different address scheme too for the various businesses it now houses.). Even though I find Burano only marginally notable, I am willing to make this compromise to save the McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom from being overshadowed even further by the high rise. I hope it will end all the unnecessary drama and save everyone who goes to AfD from having to read all of this...

--David Tornheim (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to the unusual proposal, though I bet it won't work because proposals like this don't, from my experience trying some previously. And let me suggest that the deal be understood to last for one year from the close of this AFD in terms of constraint on the other editors, though I myself agree to be bound forever by the deal. That would let the articles gel and for most parties simply to forget about this. Of course deals like this can't be binding on what other people do, besides those directly agreeing, so someone else could disagree with the deal now or later. And I happen to think that one article can suffice, based on current contents right now of the two articles. However perhaps both could be developed more separately. Overall I appreciate David Tornheim making the proposal, so I am willing to agree. I hope there will be no hard feelings if the others don't agree. And note they don't have to agree in order to "win" a "Keep" decision, as I sense this AFD is headed for Keep otherwise. If this deal is not accepted, then I may indeed participate in the merge discussion. --do ncr am 02:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree not to initiate a merge, or initiate an AFD, on the showroom article. However, if a fourth person comes along, at some time in the future, and proposes a merge, I'd like to feel free to weigh in, at that point. Geo Swan (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the deal. This isn't how or where merger discussions are resolved. One article with a redirect will provide a more complete understanding of the structure and its history, and it wouldn't be long or complicated. The merger discussion or a later WP:RM will determine which is the appropriate namespace, or there may be no merger, but that is a separate issue. Jack N. Stock (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That answers the proposal, it is not accepted by all parties (which is what I meant about proposals usually not working), so usual AFD rules still apply. At least everyone did consider it and answer, which doesn't always happen. See also my apology about intent, above in this diff.

However, going forward, perhaps one concern expressed by David Tornheim can be addressed. Namely "I have put a lot of effort .... I would like to save the record of the numerous edits I did made to the new article." That can be done by an edit history merge, which an administrator can perform. Any merge proposal going forward should ask for a history merge. --do ncr am 13:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The history will still be on the redirect page, but we can ask for a history merge if there is a merger. Jack N. Stock (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WRT the general utility of history merges... I know they can be very useful when one of the two articles was dormant for the entire time the newer article existed. But when both articles have been actively edited, at the same time, what will the revision history look like, after a history merge? Won't stepping through the merged history give a reader whiplash?
Personally, I have no problem with having two related articles, provided they both link to one another. Except for the lack of a link to the highrise article, there is little I disagree with in the showroom article.
It turns out DT is a fine writer! That was a wonderful surprise!
If we keep two articles there is no need for a history merge.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: Thank you so much for the kind words! I think we are getting closer to being on the same page. If you copy your support for separate articles at to the Talk:McLaughlin_Motor_Car_Showroom#Merger_proposal merge proposal that will help out in getting me to withdraw this WP:AfD proposal.

Regarding the lack of a link to Burano_(building), it is actually there already. It is mentioned in the second paragraph, last sentence. It is also in the info. box under "opening". That sentence and the infobox entry need to be corrected as there was far more preservation than simply saving the facade, as discussed here: Talk:McLaughlin_Motor_Car_Showroom#Facadism. I did not include it in the See also section, based on the Manual of Style rule: As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. However, I do not object to adding there. (To be honest, I don't like that rule, and think it makes more sense to repeat some of the most important areas for further information even if they are in the WP:BODY) --David Tornheim (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram:,@Geo Swan:, @Jacknstock: Thanks to everyone for responding to my proposal. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram:,@Geo Swan: Thanks to both of you for supporting my proposal. I will make a revised proposal for both of you...that might be able to resolve this. I had hoped for all three, but two will probably be enough to make it work for me. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC) [revised 22:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC) and 00:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)][reply]

new proposal:

I will withdraw this WP:AfD, if Geo Swan and doncram agree not to attempt to initiate or support a merge (including this proposed merge (permalink)) of these two buildings (Burano (building) and McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom) into one article and you also agree not to submit McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom to WP:AfD, and Geo Swan mentions at Talk:McLaughlin_Motor_Car_Showroom#Merger_proposal  his support for two separate articles [33].  If these conditions are met, in addition to withdrawing this WP:AfD, I in turn will also promise not to initiate or support a merge or WP:AfD on either article, and I will further agree to support keeping both articles, if both exist and either is subject to deletion or merging.  This agreement would not restrict any of the three of us from further opposing this proposed merge and this WP:AfD or opposing any future proposed merge or WP:AfD on either building.  Can we agree?

--David Tornheim (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to revisions to this proposal related: (1) other new editors arriving (2) a time limit for how long we are required to comply. Feel free to make a counter proposal.

--David Tornheim (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry, this is getting too complicated. I'll offer simply that I will not initiate a merger proposal and I will not initiate any AFD, not as part of any deal, I just won't. This AFD is going to be closed "Keep" or "No consensus" because a) there are 3 "Keep" votes and only the nominator supposedly supports deletion, b) the nominator is proposing deals that involve keeping the article, i.e. they are not serious about insisting upon deletion, c) this is getting to be too much for anyone else to sort through. It seems straightforward to allow the AFD to be closed (which DT you could facilitate by simply withdrawing your nom without conditions), and then discuss merger. DT must have some great reasons why the two articles shouldn't be merged, else they wouldn't be going to these lengths. Express them in the merger discussion. Sorry, I made my original point in the AFD and would like to be done sometime soon! --do ncr am 00:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple, the more expressed votes for merger and the fewer opposed, the greater the danger for them to be merged. I think any merge would seriously compromise the Showroom article. I think the showroom article should be primarily about the showroom--not the highrise. At this point, it is not clear what will happen with the merge or this WP:AfD--new editors may arrive. If we agree, then both this AfD goes away and you won't have to worry about me initiating or supporting it again, even though I don't think Burano is notable and certainly not as notable as the showroom which is. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The merger discussion (along with other discussion) increases views for both articles, and may attract improvements by other editors. As you strongly believe that the Showroom is notable, let it be tested. The test may make it stronger. Compare the Burano article now to when you started this AfD — it's bigger, better, and now there are two articles! This is one of the great strengths of collaboration. Let the collaborative processes take their course, it's all good. Jack N. Stock (talk)

I disagree. If the two articles are together the wikilink to the other will mean more views of the article people want to look at. If people are just interested in the historic building they shouldn't have to be forced to read about this run of the mill highrise. If they are interested in the high rise and don't about the historic structure, they will only be subjected to a summary of the connection between the two rather than everything interesting about the historic structure. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me. I was talking about the discussion being good for both articles. I wasn't making an argument for merger, but rather for discussion and collaboration. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, I agree that more eyes are good. Does that mean you think it would be a mistake to withdraw this AfD, since leaving it open means more eyes on this article? Also, does the move proposal give notice to other non-involved editors, like an WP:AfD or an WP:RfC? No one else has shown up who was not already aware of this AfD. I agree that more editors showing up is a good thing. I thought proposed moves and mergers give no special notice other than at the articles where the proposal is made. Leaving the AFD open will certainly invite more eyes, but I had the feeling many of you were hoping I would withdraw it. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Answers: Let the chips fall where they may, this AfD might even get relisted for another week and thus gain more attention. The move proposal was posted to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Toronto; be patient as move proposals are usually listed for at least a month, often longer. When I have time, I will also notify previous editors of Burano (building) (probably Wednesday evening). Jack N. Stock (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^Keep both I have expanded and added references to both articles.—Anne Delong (talk) 03:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. Thank you. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your vote to keep both. If you could express that at the merger proposal, it will move me in the direction of withdrawing this AfD. I'm still waiting to hear back from Geo Swan. If GeoSwan and you oppose the merger, then I can W/D this AfD, given the additional assurance from doncram above. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a negotiation. The discussion is underway, and will be closed when a consensus develops.—Anne Delong (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Snow keep and was withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fucked For Life[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I have to question whether a 40-member (unsourced) Swedish crime gang merits an article. I don't know Swedish, but I'm not finding much in English. (I'm not getting anything from the references in the article or linked in the previous Afd.) Clarityfiend (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 01:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least for the moment. The links on the English version of the article are all dead these days, but the ones on the Swedish version do seem to have a level of notability to them, albeit possibly a bit out of date by now. I'll have a shot at grabbing some details out of those links at the very least and see what we can get - it'll be a useful way of keeping my Swedish up, too - but won't stand in the way if the end product is still for the chop. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Using a new computer system the police can now map and rank the criminal organizations in Sweden. According to one compliation Fucked for Life (FFL) is the worst one", writes Expressen in 2009. "FFL is the worst enemy of the police", writes Aftonbladet in 2003. "The public got acquinted with Fucked for Life after several big money transport robberies", writes a third article. And so on. I don't trust these sources literally, in the sense that FFL is/was necessarily the worst criminal network in Sweden, but they've certainly, unfortunately, made their mark in pages of Swedish criminal history. /Julle (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no need to delete the page, as I've found a reliable source ([34] in Swedish), which puts FFL among the most notorious Mafia gangs in Sweden. Plus, this SVT2 documentary from YouTube ([35]) in Swedish, featuring an interview with Daniel Maiorana.--Theo Mandela (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,- per sourcing.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources are sufficient. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination before the SNOW buries me. Not much point in continuing this. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I think we can safely close this, given where the votes point, and given that the original nominator is the sockpuppet of an indef-blocked vandal. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland Brown Jr.[edit]

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

Procedural AfD: nomination done incorrectly by KlausSmithHeissler, who said: "I think this page should be deleted because it covers no non-fiction perspective, and the character doesn't really have much out-of-universe fame". There was an equally incorrect attempt at closure by The brave celery. Carry on. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The rationale doesn't impress me (there are plenty of articles on fictional subjects which don't cover any "fame" the subject has outside the fictional universe they're in), but the article as it stands seems to be on the borderline between being useful by itself or needing a redirect to a list of characters in one or the other show. I'll happily revise this in either direction when others chime in. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of RS references to this character, which seem to include sufficient commentary to meet GNG. Merging to character list wouldn't be the worst possible outcome, but I don't think it's needed. Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major character in an animated television series that is broadcast in several countries Seasider91 (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) f e minist 02:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Pinsky[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPROF, as tagged since August 2008. The book sources were all written by Mark Pinsky himself, and do not establish notability. Also, [36], a page about the professor, does not establish notability either. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom Dkoenig9352 (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC) — Dkoenig9352 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a fellow of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, list here, selectivity criteria here, satisfies WP:NPROF #3, I think. Smmurphy^(Talk) 12:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. To add to what Smmurphy found, he published 2 books through AMS and his research record shows HI around 30. It seems he passes according to several different criteria in PROF. Save others eds' time and please close this. Agricola44 (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Keep I didn't know that simply being a fellow makes an academic encyclopedically notable. I guess this guy is notable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's actually #3 in WP:PROF The person is...a fellow of a major scholarly society.... IMS is a well-establised society and publishes 5 high-profile journals in this area. Agricola44 (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- likely a pass at WP:AUTHOR as well with multiple published books, e.g.:

Partial differential equations and boundary-value problems with applications by Mark A Pinsky ( Book ). 30 editions published between 1988 and 2011 in English and held by 408 WorldCat member libraries worldwide. WorldCat Identities

On the balance of things, "keep" is the way to go. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C1. Nine publications with >100 citations is enough, especially in mathematics, a low-citation subject. Usually for #C3 we consider bigger academic societies like AMS or ASA, but I think the IMS Fellowship is also suggestive. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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