Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 October	16 October >

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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Tye[edit]

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

Promotional. Self-referential. Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete that a fluff article like this has had notices of its fluffness for over 7 years shows that Wikipedia needs to do something to start clearing these articles on non-notable people out.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article created by a WP:SPA and subsequently significantly edited by the WP:SPAs Joetye and ValuesCoach. The article text is merely a CV (indeed, a WP:COPYVIO of this); it contains one possible claim to notability but lacks evidence. I am finding nothing to indicate that the subject is of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG with no substantial mention in independent, reliable sources. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above, fluff piece with no independent RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Right proper fluffery lacking any indication of WP:GNG. Blatant WP:PROMO by a WP:SPA with WP:LINKSPAM to top it off. - GS ⋙ ☎ 03:52, 21 October 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 Visakhapatnam#Neighbourhoods. Let's just do as Ajj773 says and close this. This doesn't require an Afd. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neighbourhoods of Visakhapatnam[edit]

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

Already exists at Template:Neighbourhoods of Visakhapatnam. Technically not eligible for WP:A11 as it duplicates a template, not an article. DrStrauss talk 22:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I can't see why WP:A3 wouldn't apply: "This applies to articles... consisting only of... template tags." I'm nominating it for A3 accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Visakhapatnam, assuming that it doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Ajf773 (talk) 05:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Carried You Home[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Little significant coverage beyond iMDB, blogs or cinema sites themselves. DrStrauss talk 22:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviewed by the Bangkok Post[1], Variety[2] and EasternKicks.com[3], among others. Distribution deals reported on by Screen International[4]. Winner of two Suphannahong Awards. Satisfies the WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Won national film awards (Suphannahong Awards). --Lerdsuwa (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the reliable sources reviews such as The Bangkok Post and Variety identified by Paul012 Atlantic306 (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Substantial RS, as mentioned above. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:04, 17 October 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 Toilet. Content may be merged over as desired, and changing its target can be discussed at WP:RFD if necessary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manhole Toilet[edit]

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

Not notable in itself. Possibly redirect to toilet but community input would be appreciated. DrStrauss talk 22:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to toilet. This, as stated by the nom, doesn't seem to be notable, as there isn't enough coverage in reliable sources. Thus, it should be redirected. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 22:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to toilet. Bobherry Talk Edits 19:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to toilet, article appears to be based on this, but there is nothing special about it, not even enough to make it a 'novel' type of toilet, it is a normal portable toilet placed conviently over a sewer. nothing fancy. I can't really say if there is anything to merge worth merging. Dysklyver 19:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Emergency sanitation. There are enough WP:RS to government literature on ja-wiki here to suggest this is worthy of its own section within that article. It could always be expanded back at a later date. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:14, 22 October 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) 18:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One day in spring (song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. DrStrauss talk 22:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the sources actually discuss the song and there was a lack of sources from a WP:BEFORE search. There is no point in redirecting this since the article on the album will be deleted as well.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of independent notability for the song. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 07:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:G5. Primefac (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sides (Afgan album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Source search shows little in the way of major reviews etc. DrStrauss talk 22:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G5. Looks like another sock of Joanna Gunadi made this one. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:35, 20 October 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 withdrawn. Just looked on JSTOR and I think there's enough to pass GNG. (non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 20:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jugend- und Auszubildendenvertretung[edit]

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

I can find little significant coverage in English or German sources to suggest passing WP:NORG. DrStrauss talk 16:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I wonder if the nominator has really looked at the German version, which is much fuller, and has a wide range of sources. This includes three German books that seem to deal entirely or in very large part with the subject. How this cannot be considered significant coverage puzzles me--we niormally AGF about printed sources if they seem plausible. DGG ( talk ) 21:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: can you read German? Because I sure can and the stuff there amounts to passing mentions and affiliated sources only. We don't just keep stuff on the assumption that it's notable because it's in a foreign language so sources might exist. DrStrauss talk 22:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you can read German then how did you fail to spot the many reliable sources with significant coverage found by the Google Books and Scholar searches linked as part of the nomination process? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} DrStrauss talk 12:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being so obtuse and just look at the first few of the Google Books results. There are whole books there about this topic. These completely unresearched deletion nominations are becoming disruptive. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at my AfD stats more often than not I get the result right. It's neither obtuse nor disruptive. If you think I'm being disruptive, take me to WP:ANI. You've cast enough asperations in my direction over the past few weeks, such as the racism accusations, albeit now stricken; if you don't stop, I'll be taking you there. DrStrauss talk 13:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously, per the extensive coverage in reliable sources found by simply clicking on "books" or "scholar" above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. It looks like several entire German academic books are devoted to this subject, without looking at those that deal with it in the context of other primary topics.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:56, 16 October 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) 18:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Klarner[edit]

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

I came across this article because someone blanked it and asked for it to be deleted because the subject doesn't want it. Obviously that's not a valid reason for deletion, but seeing that the sources in the article look poor it made me wonder if there's sufficient evidence of notability.

All we have is his entry in IMDb (which is not an RS for notability), an archived IMDb entry for a film called The Judge which doesn't mention him (and the article doesn't mention the film), a dead globo.com link, a globo.com link to a page about Malhacao on which I can't find any mention of him, and a dead plus.google.com link.

I've done some searching, and all I can find is social media, Wikipedia, Wikipedia mirrors, and brief passing mentions... and that really is about all.

I'm really not seeing the coverage needed for notability here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a non-notable actor. Could not find any third party sources. XFhumu^Talk 17:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 16 October 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seow Siew Jin[edit]

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

A bank manager of the branch office, did not shown WP:GNG notability, despite he was the son of the founder. The most possible news article to pass GNG was the one published in Sin Chew Jit Poh However, the newspaper (Singapore version) in 1971 was not digitized and it is not publish in English. Either, it was a trans title but the original creator did not left the original title in Chinese, or a hoax. Google Book hit with 2 real result. Marshall of Singapore: A Biography, Emerald Hill, the story of a street in words and pictures, both junk (just mention of his name instead of short chapter). searching in digitized database in English generate no good article. Matthew_hk t c 16:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, not check alternative spelling "Seow Sieu Jin" yet. But for WP:NSPORTS, it did not qualify either. Matthew_hk t c 16:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok speak by fact, here is what i found, not pass GNG to me:

"Spotlight on Malaya". The Straits Times. Singapore. 6 April 1947. Retrieved 15 October 2017 – via Singapore National Library.
Readings in Malayan economics. p. 461 – via Google Book preview.
Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. p. 266 – via Google Book preview.
Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. pp. 120–123 – via Google Book preview.
– Matthew_hk t c 16:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ping pong the subject possible Chinese name: Chinese: 蕭守仁, also get junk article.
"報告第一篇馬來亞華僑金融業概觀（三）". Nanyang Siang Pau (in Chinese). Singapore. 27 January 1939. Retrieved 15 October 2017 – via Singapore National Library. (an article about Malaysian Chinese financial industry, just mention his name and "his achievement" in increasing branch office revenue)
"華僑銀行股東常年會補誌到會股東三十餘人". Nanyang Siang Pau (in Chinese). Singapore. 24 May 1938. Retrieved 15 October 2017 – via Singapore National Library. (mentioned as one of the 30+ shareholders of the bank) Matthew_hk t c 16:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Matthew_hk t c 16:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Matthew_hk t c 16:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

according to this, 蕭守仁 shared the same page in the book (新華歴史人物列傳) with 梅春辅, 蕭百馨, 蕭保龄 (his father), 蕭贤舞, 蕭志来, despite i can't accessed the original page, i doubt the significant coverage on him instead of his father. Matthew_hk t c 16:54, 15 October 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon Jones (actor)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a database for run-of-the-mill missing persons. The sources on the article -- not much different from the ones I saw in a WP:BEFORE search -- were missing person databases themselves. I could not find any trace of significance from his supposed acting career so if, by some slim chance, this article is kept it should be retitled "Disappearance of Vernon Jones". TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not ROUTINE (missing persons are not run of the mill events), however fails GNG. There is a 48 hours segment, and a few bits and pieces, but nothing close to enough to pass GNG (in article and in a BEFORE). Icewhiz (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! What the hell is going on here?! Why are all these article being deleted? With the exception of three articles which I wrote that were not well sourced (There are some other people's articles that shouldn't have been deleted as well), the deletion of all these articles has been totally ridiculous and this is going prevent a lot of editors to wanting to even write articles in the first place. What's the use of writing an article if someone is just going to delete it for what they think is a good reason. I am seriously now considering how much more I even want to write anymore when my articles are going right down the drain for I don't know what. This was a well known actor and his disappearance is notable. You just might have (but not yet for sure) helped to put a end to one of Wikipedia editors greatest contributions from continuing to keep happening as I am now wondering if editing is now even worth it. Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidgoodheart: - please see WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCRIME. What I am look for (as someone who has !vote keep on some of these) - is significant coverage - newspapers, books, journal articles, TV, etc. - which should be beyond minor local coverage, self published books, or missing person databases. This particular one - I only see one source in the article that supports this - the 48hours segment. And in my own WP:BEFORE (to look for more sources) - I don't see much else. To make a case for keep - find the sources. If you show WP:RS covering the subject - making a case for keep will be easier. Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The disappearance is run-of-the-mill and I'm struggling to find anything that justifies the claim made above that this is about a "well known actor". - Sitush (talk) 08:38, 17 October 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) 18:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Al Khayat[edit]

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

notability tagged for 2 1/2 years, no viable claim to notability Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being director of a hospital is not enough on its own to make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NO evidence of notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Director of an almost non-notable hospital is not a notable subject. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 14:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Újpest (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Disambiguation not required per WP:2DABS. A hatnote at the primary topic Újpest points to the football team, and that article lists the sports teams "Újpesti ...". PROD declined; subsequent discussion at Talk:Újpest (disambiguation)#PROD. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I endorsed the original WP:PROD, but have changed my mind. There are four full title matches (if you include the football club, which I do) on the corresponding Hungarian DAB page - and the Hungarian article hu:Újpest (történelmi település) (eight screensful) has no English equivalent. An InterWiki link from the English DAB page is the easiest way to find it. Narky Blert (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I put a list of possible matches on the talk page, though I am unclear which can be legitimately added; but any one of them would lift this from the TwoDabs category. Swanny18 (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All the sections of Ujpest TE would be valid DAB entrie, there's interwiki potential, and the see also sections to the metro stations would have qualified it as a 2DABs with additional value anyway. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "2DABS" does not require deletion, it says that when there are two items of same name that a disambiguation page is not necessarily required. However, if/when as here some editor finds some reason to create a disambiguation page anyhow, e.g. to include some reasonable "See also" for a partial match or for any other reason, it should be kept. --do ncr am 23:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xenon (program)[edit]

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

Potentially fails WP:A7 per the web content clause but clearly fails WP:NSOFT due to lack of significant coverage. Slightly improved by another used who de-prodded it but still nowhere near WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 14:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DrStrauss: How much effort did you put into looking for sources? I see ten in the article right now. Unscintillating (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. —Syrenka V (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found a couple more sources and also this blog [5] which I have not added. Still falls short though, I think. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Background disclosure: It was I (Syrenka V) who contested the proposed deletion of this page three days ago, so I'm not exactly an impartial observer in this AfD. On the other hand, I am not the page's creator, nor a user of the Xenon program (apparently only certain agencies of national governments are), nor someone affiliated with the firm that designed the software, nor with any of the government agencies that use it or handle PR for it. Indeed, I had never even heard of this program until I saw its page in the WP:PRODSUM list while doing proposed deletion patrolling a few days ago.

Yesterday I found and added more sources; the pages's reference total is now up to 10. The Xenon program is the principal topic of over half of them. Even those that do not discuss the program at length make its notability clear. For example, from Schermer's dissertation (published as a book):

The XENON application is one of the first working examples of agent technology taking over the tasks of human operators. In my opinion the impact of automated surveillance will be profound, but in this stage of the development it is too early to draw any definitive conclusions. (page 139)

and:

In the physical world CCTV cameras are only the first step towards pervasive and ubiquitous sensor networking in the public space. The COMBAT ZONES THAT SEE program offers us a first glimpse into the future of surveillance in the public space. The XENON application offers a similar glimpse into the future of online surveillance. (pages 167–168)

These remarks are in addition to Schermer's description of the basic functionality of Xenon on page 59.

The Canadian government's apologetics as to the program's impact on privacy are also important, despite being PR. They are not promotion, but a different form of PR, namely, damage control. Canada would not see a need to reassure its citizenry as to civil-liberties issues if it were not aware of potential, or actual, significant issues with negative publicity about Xenon. Clearly the Canadian government thinks Xenon is notable—and believes that many of its citizens think it notable also, and not in a good way. That same concern is mentioned, and attributed to civil-liberties experts, in several of the other sources.

In the next couple of days I won't have as much time as I would like to continue improving the page. I hope others will mine the source for additional text during that time. But whether they do or not, there is enough in the sources to justify a keep. Notability depends on existence of sources, not on the extent to which they are cited or used in the page at any one time.

—Syrenka V (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough re the improvements. Your last statement is completely wrong though - look at WP:MUSTBESOURCES. DrStrauss talk 17:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSTBESOURCES is about something different, namely, claiming that sources must exist without knowing what they are. What I meant was that the ten identified sources for this topic would demonstrate its notability even if they were, for example, merely cited within this AfD discussion. For showing notability, it's not necessary for the sources to be cited in the page, let alone for all their notability-generating passages to be used in the page's text.

But there's a more basic problem: WP:MUSTBESOURCES is simply wrong. It's part of the essay WP:ATA, which is not policy or a guideline. And it directly contradicts the section WP:NEXIST within the guideline WP:N, which is what I'm relying on. WP:NEXIST explicitly mandates consideration of sources that are likely to exist even if they can't be located.

—Syrenka V (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Must be sources" began as material that was rejected for WP:ATA because it was not policy compliant. The latest version has been co-opted by GNG-centrists, who believe that GNG should be (or is) the only sub-guideline to define "worthy of notice". Even NEXIST has been subverted, because the title section now uses the GNG-centrist viewpoint, when what WP:N requires is evidence, not sources. Unscintillating (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The only current problem here is that this AfD is still open. Unscintillating (talk) 08:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As NOW sourced it meets WP:GNG. Moreover, the subject matter is important, as pervasive surveillance and intrusion (Nineteen eighty four is not just a book by George Orwell) should be chronicled and documented. It should be included in this encyclopaedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Xenon received significant coverage in Wired and the Toronto Star so passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 04:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT#1. @O1lI0: Please review the deletion policy and WP:BEFORE. We don't delete articles because they contain errors or are inadequately referenced. You can discuss problems with the article's content on its talk page. – Joe (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure) – Joe (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Li Jiancheng[edit]

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

Today, there is a new user who thinks the content is wrong.Because he did not provide any reference source, I can not judge true and false.If it is wrong it should be deleted. If it is correct it should be retained.The article has only one reference source, and that is the dead link, so the article can not verify the content. O1lI0 (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not seeing why this needs to go straight to AFD for a content dispute. We don't delete such articles merely because they may contain mistakes as @Elainr: has claimed -- we try to correct the errors. There's been no discussion on the article talk page and precious little at User talk:Elainr. I really don't see a valid reason to delete. Keep and fix, if needed. If the article is correct, and the new user is edit warring, then there are other courses of action. (indeed, I see the nominator's first comment on User talk:Elainr was to issue a level three warning.) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 12:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Gramatte[edit]

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

Neither of the NYTimes articles even mention her. The magazine is notable. She isn't editor in chief , but art director DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete the press such as this mentions her in a role that does not confer notability.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cohd2 She was co-founder of both companies, one being a graphic design company, and at the time that was not common for a woman in magazines nor graphics in the country. It was her money (not just the $500 cash) including the income from Nuestro Graphico (that she quit her job to form) the one-woman graphics company that supported Dan Lopez and the research that was done to get the founding mentioned in the NUESTRO article. It was her prize-winning skills as an art director that helped prove the viability of the concept. He had the business acumen and she had the publishing and design know-how to present the perfect package to investors. Joan Gramatte is mentioned in the NY Times as giving the first infusion of cash (but it does not mention the fact that she quit her job too and worked on after Lopez quit his job in order to support the project): Fowler, Elizabeth M. "Management; Dreamer With Sound Idea Aided by U.S." New York Times. August 5, 1977.

Also, some awards during this time period now added.

ALSO, I have tried to re-add an Associated Press photo of the top five edit staff, includes Joan Gramatte, and Wiki won't let me do this. I just thought I could delete my first upload of the image and reload a larger image tried to make the photo into a thumbnail after I had thought I had successfully posted and now Wiki won't let me upload the larger image (that I own) that I had posted earlier. Now neither size of the image exists.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, neither the current article after Cohd2's additions nor searches disclose anything like the requirements of WP:GNG. The New York Times article, for example, merely mentions the article subject in passing in a parenthetical phrase. She may well have been an early pioneer in the American graphic design industry, but there aren't verifiable sources to document it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:29, 21 October 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. It's not a good practice to renominate some article for deletion, barely two days after a previous AfD on the topic was nearly snow-kept.Anyone interested about deletion et al, may choose to re-visit this venue, after passage of a considerable span of time. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 15:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Weinstein sexual misconduct allegations[edit]

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

Failure of WP:BLP and WP:NOT#NEWS to have this much of a detailed article outside of BL content. It is presently only allegations, and while there have been irreversible effects (eg removal from his company and the various Academies), these all can be discussed in content of his career on his article. But it's a BLP problem, especially listing out every person that claims to have been alleged, even if these are all people that are highly visible. MASEM (t) 12:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed there was a previous AFD, but I didn't see any angle on the BLP side of that. Also, people that argued that merging this into Weinstein's article, it would be better to split out the Filmography from that article (a standard practice) to expand on a few details on the allegations, but it should not be covered in this much depth on Wikipedia while it is just an allegation and not formal convictions from a trial. --MASEM (t) 12:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regarding WP:NOT#NEWS: according to Wikipedia:Notability_(events): "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards" I believe this is the case here. This is not just a routine news report about a minor event. The news have already made the topic notable.

Although some BLP issues could arise from this article, in general it uses reliable, published source. The BLP policy implies that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed. It does not imply that negative information must be removed, given the appropriate sources.

WP:BLPCRIME would not apply here. In the same way it did not apply to Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations.

Note that if we merged the content into the Weinstein's article, there would be no way of limiting its depth or avoiding bringing the original article out of balance. That would be a clear case of Wikipedia:DUE.

Note too that if you want to remove a section of this article, you could discuss it in the talk page, but no AfD is needed for that.Hofhof (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While there is some reason to keep based on the volume of stories, BLP is a much stronger policy that we need to respect. The list of alleged victims is a complete failure of BLP - remember, he hasn't been convicted yet, and while these are all public names, all this is is effectively gossip of who said what - if they're named as plaintiffs in a lawsuit, that would be different. So once that list is removed, and removing what's duplicated in the biographical article, this fits perfectly fine there without UNDUE - this is an event that has changed his career 100%, so of course it is going to be a significant part. And as noted, it is standard practice to offload long filmography to a separate list when it runs long like this. --MASEM (t) 13:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep. I think the Trump allegation article is just as much a problem, as there's only been allegations and no actual conviction, much less legal action. In contrast, Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations actually has several trials in progress, and other clear effects that resulted that were beyond just what happened to Cosby. --MASEM (t) 13:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say we should keep it because similar articles exist. I say WP:BLPCRIME does not apply here because it does not cover WP:WELLKNOWN. In the same way it does not apply to Trump's allegations or many other similar cases. Hofhof (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:GNG, WP:NEVENT, and as was noted in the closure of the previous AfD, to add this stuff to the main article would unbalance it. Also, regardless of whether these are allegations, the sheer amount of coverage of this topic is far beyond the routine. I am slightly uncomfortable with the inclusion of the list of accusers, but that isn't a reason to delete this. This is Paul (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should review the sources of that list. Sources like The New Yorker, The NY Times, The Guardian and such should be kept. Gossipy sources like The Hollywood Reported or Deadline probably not.Hofhof (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree. This is Paul (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just removed some. Maybe better sources could be found for the rest. Hofhof (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- BLP takes priority over GNG or other notability guidelines. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are other ways of dealing with BLP issues - tags or just removing the bit of unsourced information. An AfD would only be appropriate if the whole story were invented. But it is not.Hofhof (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're giving far too much weight by having a separate article to go into allegations that have yet to be even considered in court. We shouldn't be covering it at this much detail per BLP at this point as well as per our purpose as an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The important point to remember here is that these are allegations, and this is made clear both by the title, and in the article itself. In terms of WP:BLP, all of the information discussed is verifiable and there is no original research as far as I can tell. Some work is perhaps needed on neutrality, but we're getting there. I don't see a major WP:BLP issue beyond that which we would have in any other topic of this nature. I will note, however, that this matter is the subject of criminal investigations both in the United Kingdom and United States, so we should err on the side of caution as regards the information we're adding, and take a look at WP:BLPCRIME. Finally, whether or not any of this stuff results in court proceedings, the impact of this whole episode has been significant already – significant enough for us to have an article discussing it. This is Paul (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and trout the nominator. We've been through this just hours ago and the result was a SNOW keep. The allegations against Weinstein are a global news event amply justifying an article, and this article is well within BLP. A frivolous nomination. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It definitely passes WP:NEVENT, the lasting impact of these allegations will be seen for decades in the movie industry and the debate over sexual assault. This is bigger than the individual now and the fact this is ongoing is not a reason to exclude it. So long as a neutral stand point can be kept about the allegations themselves, with no comment or implication as to whether he is guilty or not, the article does not fail BLP and as mentioned, including this within in the main article could have worse implications for neutrality. 333cale (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge back into "Harvey Weinstein." Zakawer (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this was just snow-closed as such. This scandal obviously merits dedicated coverage, merging it back would not allow for adequate coverage including aspects where other people are affected. Listing the alleged victims is not a BLP problem, as long as we make clear that these are allegations, as plenty of reliable sources are compiling just such lists (eg, The Guardian, Newsweek). The names are necessary to understand the scope of the scandal. Sandstein 14:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I'm surprised an admin as acting so unconstructively. JJARichardson (talk) 14:54, 15 October 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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patientory[edit]

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

zero evidence for notability; the sources are about their plans, not their accomplishments-- and they are jsut PR, like everything in any bizjournal. Forebes is about the principle, not the company DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject of the article fails to meet either general notability or WP:CORP guidelines. References either don't deal with the company and its product in depth or are derived from sources that aren't reliable or aren't independent. For example, the Forbes references are by "contributors" and the Huffington Post reference is from its "Contributor platform", not staff writers subject to editorial review. The BlockchainNews website promotes use of blockchain technology, not an independent voice. Some references are to blogs. The references all refer to Patientory as a "startup". Several refer to the novelty of its "initial coin offering" and creation of a "healthcare cryptocurrency" to finance the company but novel or unusual does not mean notable. If widely adopted, the company and its products may become notable at some time in the future but don't currently merit an article in the encyclopedia. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 17:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: New references have been added since nomination and those bear a little more analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 08:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SPIP, GNG and WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- references fail WP:CORPDEPTH; the article is exclusively promotional. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 20 October 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. —SpacemanSpiff 07:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Half Major[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. No substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 02:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 03:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 03:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious WP:GARAGE: "The band currently is working on their own album..." Unsigned bands do not meet general or specific notability guidelines. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. gongshow talk 16:21, 20 October 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Walker[edit]

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

There's little indication of notability from a search for sources - even with a disambiguator most sources I can find are about a different Roland Walker (link). There's also quite a bit of copy-pasted content but I'm not sure if it is severe enough to warrant a G12. The only possible claim to fame is the receipt of a reward which is only reported in one source. DrStrauss talk 12:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 08:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Delete So, I'm not fully sure about this. But looking in Lexis, Newsbank, and Ebsco all found no hits about the person that I think this article is about. But there are other Roland Walker's who appear and who maybe if they are all the same person (and I really couldn't figure that out), then maybe...maybe...that person passes notability. I'd suggest delete based on my best effort to save the article, which I couldn't do. But, I'd encourage folks to be hesitant if the article come back with any changes. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:40, 18 October 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.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hafiz Saleh Michika[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:ANYBIO. Notability is not inherited —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no where close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject of this article fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. A Google search of the subject doesn't show reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete created by PR manager WP:SPA –Ammarpad (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 21 October 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AKAYCENTRIC[edit]

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

Nothing notable about the subject to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:MUSICBIO —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of him doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:09, 16 October 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. If anyone would like me to restore the article into userspace to facilitate a merge of worthwhile info to De'Aaron Fox or Lonzo Ball, please just ask. A Train^talk 12:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ball–Fox rivalry[edit]

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

This article is WP:TOOSOON when Lonzo Ball and De'Aaron Fox have played each other a mere two times—zero times professionally. Sources themselves indicate this "rivalry" is too early to be historically notable yet: "The Fox-Lonzo Ball rivalry so many are desperately pushing ..." (The Sacramento Bee, October 7, 2017), "there’s a burgeoning — even if benign — rivalry between the two ... Whether we get a full-fledged rivalry for years to come or a cautionary tale of premature conflict" (The Ringer, July 11, 2017), "The novelty of the De’Aaron Fox-Lonzo Ball on- and off-court rivalry ..." Herald-Ledger, July 10, 2017), and "... one of the NBA's potential budding rivalries" (Courier-Journal, July 22, 2017). It also fails the policy WP:NOTDIARY: "... news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary." If we exclude the verbatim quotes of incessant social media banter, especially by father Lavar Ball, there is little enduring substance to write about. Per the guideline WP:NRIVALRY, "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." This fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage, when few sources provide a historical overview of the alleged rivalry, a usual indicator that it's just the liberal use of rivalry and trivial quotes to fill today's 24-hour news cycle. —Bagumba (talk) 07:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 07:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this “rivalry” is a year old and doesn’t have the coverage needed to meet GNG. It has a long way to go before it’s Bird-Magic (and Bird-Magic doesn’t have an article). WP:TOOSOON. Rikster2 (talk) 12:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't believe time is a factor in meeting WP:GNG, but in the year the rivalry has existed, it has received extensive coverage by several reliable sources. Some of them might not call it an actual "rivalry" but they still talk about the relationship between the two players. TempleM (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NRIVALRY, rivalries have to meet WP:GNG. Considering the fact that there are multiple independent sources out there that say that this is a rivalry, who are we, as a reference work, to say "no, it isn't". I don't think that we have that authority. Thus, considering this, and considering the fact that there is multiple independent reliable sources that cover this, this rivalry is notable. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 18:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems like rivalries would need to have sustained coverage over a significant period of time. I don’t see how that is possible for these two yet with just starting their pro careers and having matched up a grand total of two times. Rikster2 (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: This is an unusual case where the rivalry has received extensive coverage starting in college. Unusual, but still notable if you go by WP:GNG. TempleM (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is pure media hype. The coverage is of people talking about a possible future rivalry. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Many of the sources claim that it is a possible future rivalry because they are describing it in terms of the NBA. In addition, the two players' relationship with each other has been extensively delved into by multiple reliable sources. TempleM (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This falls under the rarely-cited second element of the GNG: that articles are subject to WP:NOT all the same. In this particular instance, WP:CRYSTAL applies, to wit: "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Claiming that a "rivalry" exists between two players who've never met professionally is the height of blather from bored sportswriters on deadline, and there won't be a single article on this alleged "rivalry" appearing two days after the game. At some point we just have to apply common sense. Ravenswing 11:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A rivalry does not necessarily have to begin at the professional level. While unconventional, WP:GNG would still apply due to how extensive the coverage of these players' relationship already is. Considering the way these two players' relationship has been framed, I am more than certain there will be many articles on them, although that isn't relevant to this discussion. Either way, it is best to simply stick to the WP:N rather than be swayed by your personal beliefs on this topic. TempleM (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: Well, I think it's best to put out your POV without seeking to rebut each and every comment with which you disagree, but I guess dissatisfaction's going all around. I stand by my position, that describing the aforementioned blather as a "rivalry" is just this side of insane, that I am correctly interpreting the explicitly stated provisions of the GNG, and that many a violator of WP:CRYSTAL likewise asserts great certainty in their views. Why, I can even think of an NBA-related one ... can anyone find, for instance, recent articles describing how Markelle Fultz was going to be uniquely focused on proving to the Boston Celtics how unwise they were in spurning him? Ravenswing 03:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the competition between any two teams/persons can be described as a rivalry and, due to the promotional nature of sports journalism, often is. Accordingly the raw count of "rivalry" mentions is not a reliable indicator of what can be considered a rivalry in an encyclopedic context. It is a tricky term to define, since there is no official meaning; I suggest looking for sustained coverage of an ongoing competition that extends beyond on-the-court play. isaacl (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That statement is a bit too broad, because very few (much less "any") competitions between players are widely described as rivalries or receive significant coverage, like this one. There has been extensive coverage of the relationship specifically between these two players, whether or not the sources explicitly call it a "rivalry." And, like you said, these players' relationship has indeed extended beyond the court. TempleM (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pretty much any pair of high-performing players will be described as rivals at some point by sports journalism. In the current article, I don't see any examples of actual competition off the court. Is there a competition for fans, endorsement deals, grand parade marshal invitations, or anything else? isaacl (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The difference with Ball-Fox is that they have been described as rivals countless times by independent sources. Fans, endorsement deals, etc. isn't generally what a rivalry is about; it is mostly dependent on on-court performance. However, this rivalry has been extended off-court with drama between the players' fathers and on social media, as well as the "ducking" controversy. TempleM (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, lots of pairs of players get described as having rivalries over and over, simply by virtue of playing during the same time period. We'll have to agree to disagree on what should be considered a rivalry in an encyclopedic sense. If it's only about on-court performance, then everyone at the top of the stats leaderboards can be said to have a rivalry with each other. In my view, a truly significant rivalry should extend further than that. isaacl (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        There are hundreds of NBA players in the current time period, but only a handful have been repeatedly called rivals. With Ball-Fox, it's not only about on-court performance either. It is a combo of on-court play and off-court arguments and drama. TempleM (talk) 01:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Arguments and drama in themselves aren't defining characteristics of a rivalry. Some kind of competition over something is characteristic of a rivalry. isaacl (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (article creator): The reason many sources call this a future/budding rivalry is because they are talking about it in terms of the NBA. However, the name of this article isn't "Ball–Fox NBA rivalry" but rather "Ball–Fox rivalry." This is a rivalry that began in college. Yes, you could say they just played two college games against each other, but that is where WP:GNG comes in. There have been a number of story lines surrounding it, produced by a variety of people, so not all of it is purely media hype. Even if you personally think some of those story lines are media fluff, they have still been covered extensively by reliable sources, making the rivalry notable. This page is concise and doesn't go into unnecessary details that would fall under WP:NOTDIARY. The quotes and social media banter don't make up all of the article, and they are still completely relevant and well covered. WP:NRIVALRY states that they must satisfy GNG, which this does. TempleM (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Whoa - what is GNG for a rivalry? A rivalry is something built over time. With Shaq-Kobe, Magic-Bird, Wilt-Russell, etc you have YEARS of articles, books, documentaries. This isn't a player article where a couple of sources is sufficient to meet GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A rivalry does not necessarily have to be built over a long period of time. The word mainly emphasizes a competition for superiority, and it generally involves some kind of tension, both of which are present in Ball-Fox. Regarding sources, all WP:GNG states is that there must be "secondary sources" and "multiple sources." And while WP:SUSTAINED discourages "brief bursts of news coverage," this rivalry has been existing for several months and has therefore had a lot of time to develop. TempleM (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I disagree with you. There was a Shaq-Laettner rivalry once upon a time, but it had no lasting historical significance. If these players, or their teams, don't live up to their hype this "rivalry" disappears, which is why you need a longer period of time than less than a year (2 meetings). Also, you need to disclose that you are the article creator. Rikster2 (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: While I agree with the first part of your comment, I think speculation that there is a possibility of this rivalry dying down is not a fair rationale to delete this article. In my opinion, we should base notability off of what is already out there. TempleM (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a handful of speculative sources are not enough evidence, otherwise Category:National Basketball Association rivalries would have a thousand articles. Neodop (talk) 12:10, 21 October 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Romanelli[edit]

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

pure advertisement. Notability would be irrelevant. written by a succession of SPAs DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is over the top too promotional.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I dont know how it passed Afc. It is so heavily promotional. Passed WP:TNT. Blow it up now. scope_creep (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Afc entry was tiny, it was only afterward was it expanded massively. This article: Wendy Starland underwent a similar process I think. scope_creep (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:05, 21 October 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Clark (JBS)[edit]

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

This person does not seem notable enough for his own Wikipedia entry. LibraryGurl (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete needs more RC, references either not independent, or not substantive.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion page started with WP:Not notable. The purpose of this page is to inform about the shadowy figures behind an alt-right organization. Thus far they've made themselves difficult to research.

There isn't enough to give him his own entry and you can probably do the same in the JBS entry. --LibraryGurl (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The John Birch Society has fallen far below the level of being a notable organization, so recent presidents are not really notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to John Birch Society, best not to leave a redlink out there to just have the article recreated and we do this all over again in a few months. Montanabw^(talk) 18:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor notoriety, not passing WP:BASIC, don't redirect as that will prompt recreation even more Atlantic306 (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:55, 22 October 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 DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jannquell Peters[edit]

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

WP:BLP of the mayor of a small town with a population of 33K. This is not large enough to hand a mayor an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, but the article is not sourced well enough to fulfill the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our inclusion criteria for local officeholders -- of the nine sources here, two are her primary source profiles on the websites of organizations she's directly affiliated with; two are glancing namechecks of her existence in articles that aren't about her; one is the alumni newsletter of the school she attended in childhood, which isn't a notability-assisting source; one is a mere blurb about her in a magazine; and one is a dead link whose content is entirely unverifiable. And of the two remaining sources that actually count as media coverage, both are in a community weekly newspaper rather than a major daily, and one is about the all-candidates debate rather than about her. Which means that there's only one source here that's actually reliable and independent and about her, and one acceptable source is not enough to make a smalltown mayor notable enough for inclusion all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though if more RS could be found I would be happy to change. Agree with nom, small town mayor, and not enough substantive RS to make her notable . I did a google search, she is mentioned in a few articles, but not in substantive sources.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mayor of a minor suburb, no show of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete sources found are local, trivial and routine. mayor of a small suburb.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are local and trivial so the Mayor needs more coverage to have an article. --Frmorrison (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cinnzeo[edit]

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

Article doesn't have any sources, and reads more like an advertisement than anything. Doesn't meet GNG. –Miles Edgeworth^Talk 00:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant advertising with no independent sources provided, for a "totally Canadian company" which has the majority of its stores in Saudi Arabia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's a chain Though not sure how big?), seems like it could be notable with enough sources, but they certainly haven't been included. Ran a quick Google search and didn't seem very little substantive RS, so this does come across as promotional.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed advertising content from the article. Cricketer993 (talk) 06:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article that has had repeated bouts of promotional content addition by WP:SPAs but still lacks references after more than a decade. My searches are finding routine franchising announcements but not the substantial coverage required for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above, lacks sources and is unlikely to produce more.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:29, 19 October 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.