Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 October	25 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) 20:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Heartfield[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:AUTHOR. Most of the sources are self-published, or make brief mention of her. This source has detail, but is a primary source interview. As well, this source has some depth, but is published in a fanzine. This person is an excellent writer, who through her work as a journalist, is well published in a variety of Canadian newspapers (as would be expected from a competent journalist...I mean, that's her job, writing newspaper articles with her name in the by-line). Unfortunately, in the absence of any significant biographical details about her published in secondary sources, being a hard working journalist is not enough to establish notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete She had a successful career in journalism although perhaps not a notable one Kate Heartfield, James Gordon leaving Ottawa Citizen; has published short fiction; and has two novels under contract [1], albeit not yet published. However, writing credits ≠ WP notability and she lacks WP:SIGCOV. It looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no solid reliable sourcing being cited here at all. The article is referenced mostly to primary sources, blogs, podcasts and content where she's the bylined author rather than the subject — and the only two sources that are acceptable for use as Wikipedia references at all (Tor and the Ottawa Citizen) still have problems, because the Tor piece just namechecks her existence without being about her, while the Citizen piece is about her work for the Citizen and thus isn't independent of her. And the article claims nothing about her that would constitute an automatic free pass over WP:AUTHOR in the absence of better sourcing than this, either. A writer is not automatically eligible for a Wikipedia article just because she exists — she has to pass an AUTHOR criterion, and she has to have reliable source coverage about her for it, for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. TL;DR notability is when subjects are written about, not when subjects write about other things. Ifnord (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The artsfile source is the only one there that is also about her, rather than just about her writings. Proving notability would require more biographical media coverage. With the upcoming books, likely WP:TOOSOON. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:12, 31 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) 20:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barun K. De[edit]

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

Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need sources other than a bio page from an individuals employer to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I haven't been able to find any substantial coverage in any independent sources. Breaking sticks (talk) 21:50, 30 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. Jenks24 (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SnatchBot (software)[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources". No WP:ORGIND sources and clear WP:SPIP. Company hasn't received enough coverage to be considered notable. Nihlus 20:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are multiple references but they do not refer to the subject in any great detail. Ifnord (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient media coverage. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:17, 31 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 merged to St. Methodios Faith and Heritage Center. Jenks24 (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Merrimac[edit]

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

Non notable summer camp Theroadislong (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need - will merge will current property article page.Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 24 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 is clear, even a day early. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Rioja[edit]

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

I'm unconvinced that this individual has not attracted sufficient in-depth coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. There is coverage in Bolivian sources but the content at the end of the first makes me question it's reliability as it looks distinctly like a press release. The second is a Q&A interview which again isn't great as the article just repeats whatever the subject says. Perhaps more importantly, regardless of coverage, what is he actually notable for? This, combined with the fact that it was created by undisclosed paid editors makes me doubt whether we should have an article about him. SmartSE (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the 1st AFD was withdrawn by the nominator before any !votes were made. SmartSE (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an unnotable, run of the mill, businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:TOOSOON and promotional 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:22, 31 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 merged to Chilembwe uprising. Jenks24 (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nguludi Raid[edit]

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

Not notable. Only has one reference which is not "significant coverage" under WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search found no WP:RS to make the article notable and therefore the article should be deleted. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 19:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not sure how you found no reliable sources. A quick search reveals the raid is mentioned in The Rise of Nationalism in Central Africa: The Making of Malawi and Zambia, The Catholic Missionaries Within and Beyond the Politics of Exclusivity in Colonial Malawi, 1901-1945, Catholics, Peasons and Chewa Resistance in Nyasaland. Please take more care when nominating African content for deletion. A brief internet search with your default settings is not sufficient. See Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Greenman (talk) 06:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge/redirect to Chilembwe uprising, the article about the uprising which it is part of. We can't justifiably have an article about a 'battle' as tiny as this one is. the entire article is:

On 26 January, a group of rebels attacked a [[Catholic Church|Catholic mission]] at [[Nguludi]] belonging to Father Swelsen. The mission was defended by four African armed guards, one of whom was killed, Father Swelsen was also wounded in the fighting and the church was burnt down.

So we have established that there was one person killed, one wounded and a church burnt. This is a verifiable fact, but you can't possibly build an article out of it, without said article becoming a coatrack. It would make much more sense to include this paragraph in the larger article about the conflict. It is not really helping our readers to keep this separate.

the nom's reasoning may be slightly deficient, I am saying this should be merged as being too niche a subject, not because it isn't notable. Dysklyver 13:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with merging into Chilembwe uprising. Greenman (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is the AFD outcome consistent with Dysklyver and Greenman's reasonable discussion. --do ncr am 00:04, 29 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 and redirect to Vee Technologies. —SpacemanSpiff 09:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chocko Valliappa[edit]

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

nn businessman. I favour redirecting to his business; this was reverted by page creator. Seeking a wider consensus. TheLongTone (talk) 12:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 13:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 13:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable businessman. Note that per WP:NOTINHERITED the notable company founded by the subject does not confer notability on the subject of this article. Redirecting to Vee Technologies (the company he founded) would also work.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vee Technologies; valid search term per WP:ATD-R. Not finding adequate coverage to meet WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vee Technologies per Northamerica1000, though that article isn't looking too far off from an AfD nom itself. A Train^talk 19:42, 24 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) TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zeal (web)[edit]

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

This is an old, unsourced article about a defunct web directory. Back in 2004 (before our formalized AFD process was established), there was a deletion discussion on Talk:Zeal (web), which appeared to end with a slight consensus toward keeping. However, none of the arguments for or against were grounded in any particular policies or guidelines, which likely didn't exist at the time. Since then, Wikipedia's inclusion criteria have evolved, so this deserves a re-visit. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. The WP:BEFORE for this one is more challenging than usual given the un-Googleable name, but you can find some reliable stuff. This Forbes article is promising, and this Search Engine Watch article suggests that Zeal was once a big deal on par with DMOZ. The current state of the article sucks and needs a cleanup. But if this was an important part of the pre-dotcom bust Web, then there's definitely potential for an encyclopedia article here. A Train^talk 19:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Zeal (which seemed to be bigger than DMOZ) said its profiles were used by many of the main search engines, such as (I think) Yahoo, in the days before search engines invented their own spiders and started presenting only extracts from "hit" sites, not the earlier summary profiles. I was a major contributor (in the top 20 numerically by points earned) and remember being pleasantly surprised to see my contributions occasionally being served up to me when I searched for something. I had indexed some Wikipedia articles before Zeal closed. Robin Patterson (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 25 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) — fortunavelut luna 07:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong 97 (video game)[edit]

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

No notability asserted. Game was made by an obscure publisher. Content is largely OR. Simply being reviewed by AVGN does not mean it's notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, I found some additional sources. It's discussed in-depth by Eurogamer and Kotaku, and it's mentioned by GamesRadar. With Hardcore101 and Angry Video Game Nerd, I believe notability has been met. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Eurogamer is about an entirely unrelated game (HK97 mentioned in comments), and GamesRadar only comments offhand on it. Jimbo1qaz (talk) 03:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also this article from China Uncensored, with sources above easily passes WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 08:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG per the sources displayed above. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:24, 1 November 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. Jenks24 (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sage (photographer)[edit]

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

Does not appear notable. Article reads like a promotional puff piece, and none of the sources discuss the subject. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete. As a baby boomer, the article subject is no doubt innocent of concepts like search-engine friendly names, which makes turning up sources for this one difficult. The article sources actually do discuss the subject but it's one link deep from the cited pages. From the single source it's hard to tell if the subject meets WP:ARTIST criterion 4, so barring someone turning up with an armload of sources this one seems to be a delete. A Train^talk 20:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Exactly as per A Train. My looks too. Looks like the subject should be notable but cannot find anywhere near sufficient for NEXIST. A telling source would be one that gave the subject's full name, and help separate it from PROMO. Aoziwe (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is the one page at the Portrait Gallery, but I'd expect more sources for notability. --George100 (talk) 06:19, 25 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 Idiot Flesh. No reason for this to be at AfD, per WP:ATD-R. A Train^talk 20:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Nothing Show[edit]

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

An interesting album but not one that passes WP:NALBUM. There simply is not reviews or other in-depth sources that can help this meet WP:GNG. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Idiot Flesh. It's quite possible that sources exist from the 1990s, but until someone finds them there's not much basis for an article. This could have been redirected rather than brought to AfD. --Michig (talk) 18:01, 24 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. Passes WP:NCRIC. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Janitha Hewawasam[edit]

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

No secondary sources since 2009. A search in 2017 finds none in English. Fails WP:BLP1E Rhadow (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POINT OF ORDER. This AfD is disruptive and based on a false premise. NSPORTS subjects are expressly outside the scope of BLP1E. The assertion that no English sources can be found is illogical to the point of being ridiculous. The subject is Sri Lankan and sources are Sinhalese per WP:NEXIST as outlined at other AfDs. Furthermore, BLP1E means "single event" and yet, as the article says, this chap played in TWO top-class matches over a two year period. Nominator has been warned about persistently abusing guidelines by misrepresentation. Jack | ^{talk page} 21:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. Placing bogus templates on peoples' talk pages so you can later run around screaming "THEY'VE BEEN WARNED" is not on. And be reminded that falsely accusing people of dishonesty is itself actionable misconduct. Reyk _YO! 11:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So is WP:Wikistalking so I suggest you comply with your own bullshit. As for Rhadow, we will see if heeds the warning, which is entirely legitimate, and refrains from misrepresenting BLP1E in future. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. I am neither stalking anyone nor lying. Please drop the personal attacks and belligerent attitude. Reyk _YO! 16:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You followed me to Jenks' page and to Rhadow's page and to all of these AFDs so that is a form of stalking. Bullshitting and lying are not necessarily the same thing. Rhadow has misrepresented guidelines and other situations several times so he needed warning about it especially if he really is someone with only 2k edits. He has even lied in his answer to me on his own talk page (qv and see if you can spot the deliberate lie). Anyway, why don't you join the discussion at CRIC as you should be able to contribute. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm confused, why are you continuing to alter your deletion rationale? "No press coverage", that we can find right now in English, fair enough. "BLP1E", that's true of almost everyone on Wikipedia that they're only known for the one thing they're known for, including 99 percent of cricketers, Test, ODI, first-class, whatever. "BLP unreferenced", an outright lie.

The fact that none of these guidelines has anything to do with the basic guideline which we've been working to for the last ten, twelve years of a single first-class appearance is proof that those who wish to delete cricket articles which clearly meet guidelines are doing so to simply bias the project based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT criteria. Which is sad. Bobo . 16:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:CRIN. Lepricavark (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to CRIN, subject also passes WP:NEXIST especially re Sinhalese sources. Article has been improved with THREE reliable sources inline now, plus the NEXIST pointer. Jack | ^{talk page} 21:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:CRIN. The basic contradiction between the pages which outline the so-called "guidelines" of GNG and SNG renders both completely meaningless, meaning that WP:CRIN is the only logical arbiter. Bobo . 22:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - now that the nominator's main concerns about this article, true or false as they may have been, have been dealt with, this renders the original rationale for deletion entirely obsolete, and as such this AfD should be treated this way. Bobo . 22:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:CRIN, has multiple sources, and there are likely to be more, though perhaps not many in the English language. Johnlp (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete it as this is established by previous AfDs that bios of these players should not be all stats. I don't think we will ever have coverage from which we can write enough biography for him. Not discussed in detail by multiple sources so we can write enough without WP:OR. Name-checked only by match records in different sources which only verify him per WP:V but this still fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 09:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not all stats so you can't invoke WP:NOTSTATS, for example. It passes GNG because of WP:NEXIST given that we have proven in the earlier case that Sinhalese sources do exist and that they can provide additional information. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This vote can, according to the user's edit summary, be completely disregarded. Bobo . 15:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into a suitable list of players by club. A third of this article is statistics bloated grotesquely into a semblance of prose, and the rest is a bizarre footnote that is not about the person at all, but unsuccessfully tries to argue that articles of this kind should be exempt from WP:N and WP:V. Hopeless. If this ends up kept, I hope it's at least agreed that the footnote is self-serving mendacious drivel; to my knowledge we haven't had a wikiproject push its propaganda in the mainspace since the Article Rescue Squadron got their AfD canvassing template deleted. Reyk _YO! 11:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute rubbish. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reyk, you are lucky that we still give you credence in your arguments. If you are willing to write an article which lists every cricketer for a team (not just a spotty few which have been deleted by others as per WP:IDONTLIKEIT), please do, however, judging by recent pathetic activity in attempting to create such a list, these will probably not be given much of an airing... And please be thankful that we in fact give our time to "bloat" these articles into prose text, which is apparently unnecessary and you would rather see as statistics... which is nonsense. Bobo . 15:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We wouldn't have to be writing such "self-serving mendacious drivel" if people were able to follow (and understand) insultingly simple guidelines... and you think it's the cricket project at the wrong? Bobo . 15:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional rationale for keep. Per power~enwiki at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I. Kudigame, this article qualifies as a procedural keep because it complies with a subject specific guideline (i.e., WP:CRIN) and, procedurally, a consensus cannot overturn either the three core policies or the five pillars. WP:Notability is not one of the CCPOL and the article passes each of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. Re the 5PI, this article clearly qualifies as valid content for a specialised almanac.

Furthermore, per DGG at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. Dinaparna, "the correct interpretation of presumed in WP is the same as in the real world – it will be considered to be the case unless there is evidence to show otherwise" and so it follows that "presumed notability means the subject meeting the presumption is notable unless it can be demonstrated that it is not". No one has demonstrated non-notability and the subject clearly complies with its subject specific criteria.

Finally, per I JethroBT when closing the directly relevant Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) (2nd nomination) with a keep result, "there's no dispute that the individual played cricket professionally, and we generally keep articles on professional players". He went on to confirm that "the article has been improved and new sources have been added both before and after this AfD, which is consistent with the notion that coverage of this individual may be available, even if it is hard to access (as evidenced by notes in the discussion) and not present in the article at this time (as a result of which) some early recommendations to delete (were) re-evaluated in that light". The additional information came from a Sinhalese newspaper proving WP:NEXIST, as is the case with any Sri Lankan first-class cricketer. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, nominator's rationale for deletion of this article may not be relevant for afd ie. "no secondary source since 2009", so? an article doesn't require "uptodate" sources for the subject to be notable, ditto for "none (sources) in English", although its nice to have english language sources to refer to, again does not preclude a subject from the enwp, as for "Fails WP:BLP1E", doen't this mean the subject can't be non-notable due to not being known for just the one event? other editors have been saying keep due to meeting WP:CRIN which is fine, just like to mention at the top of WP:NSPORTS, "conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind ..", also the footnote added to the article is truly bizarre, i suggest it may be appropriate for the talkpage but not for the article page, anyway thanks for an interesting discussion. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And is, in any case, now entirely untrue and can be disregarded. Not that it was ever true in the first place... I don't even understand what "since 2009" means. Bobo . 16:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad it's an interesting discussion. Nothing like a good old-fashioned bunfight, is there? Many times over. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination is completely irrelevant. Notability is not temporary, and there are foreign language sources. Plus he passes WP:NCRIC. Let's close this, already - it's clearly erroneous. Smartyllama (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly there are a lot of first-class cricketers who have been sent up for deletion recently in direct contradiction with any number of notability guidelines. The fact that the deletion rationale (no secondary sources) is patently false is another matter entirely and was immediately addressed. The deletion rationale had zip to do with WP:CRIN and could have been fixed with a simple note or message - or indeed by the person who sent the article to AfD in the first place... Bobo . 16:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Dinamina Match Report Old Cambrians v Antonians SC from 1991 in Sinahalese that Jack claims his friend saw, describes two teams that do not include the Panadura team. The reference does not support the article. Rhadow (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes NCric. Flawed rationale.L3X1 (distænt write) 03:26, 1 November 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) 20:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indians in Belgium[edit]

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

No WP:RS coverage to write article without original research per WP:OR. Fails WP:GNG. Alternatively, we can redirect to Non-resident Indian and person of Indian origin if we have any reliable source. Störm (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - complete OR and no evidence of GNG Spiderone 22:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced original research of no encyclopaedic value. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOR. Ajf773 (talk) 08:55, 25 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) 20:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Mikkelson[edit]

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

Obvious, blatant POV fork from Snopes article. Anmccaff (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of seperate notability. The Snoopes article is one of the most POV-pushing articles I have read in a long time. The only mention of critics is in a sentence that says that they make "false" accusations against it. That is a classic example of a strawman argument, they pick an unsupported argument that can be proved false, so that the article can ignore any nuanced and thoughtout criticism of the site. That is a good method for promoting a postion, it is not a good method for gaining understanding of anything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not independently notable; sources are passing mentions or related to Snopes.com. Insufficient for a BLP. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few personal bits such as schooling, but they'll fit in the company article, too. Anmccaff (talk) 04:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable enough for stand alone article per GNG. Kierzek (talk) 13:15, 31 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. Jenks24 (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al Burhan Group[edit]

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

Lacking in any significant in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article was already speedy deleted on August 5 as G11 under the title Al-Burhan Group. Since this copy was added under a different user name, it could be unattributed copying, which is a form of copyvio. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:33, 25 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. Passes WP:NCRIC. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sujith Fernando[edit]

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

No secondary sources since 2009. None found in 2017. Fails WP:BLP1E. Rhadow (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POINT OF ORDER. Disruptive nomination again by editor who has been warned for persistent misrepresentation of guidelines. Sportspeople are expressly outside scope of blpie and, like others, this afd is invalid. Jack | ^{talk page} 23:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a legitimate point of order. Placing bogus warnings on peoples' talk pages just because you disagree with them on inclusion standards, then going around everywhere to yell "THEY'VE BEEN WARNED", is not proper procedure. Reyk _YO! 10:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is WP:Wikistalking so I suggest you back off. The warning is legitimate because Rhadow has several times misrepresented BLP1E and other guidelines. If he refrains from misrepresentation in future then all is well and good. As for "proper procedure", you are one of the last people I would consult, with good reason. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it has been proven, time and time again, that CI and CA are sources maintained independently of the sport and each other, so this is an outright mistruth. If you wish to argue based on the fact that you believe one match to be too low a bar, individual AfDs are not the place to do it. Bobo . 15:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - interesting to note, however, that the birthdate which was - obviously - present on both sources when I originally set up the article eight years ago, is no longer present on either profile. I'm willing to remove this on account of the fact that it's not present on either source. Bobo . 15:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bobo192. Nom rationale is invalid. Lepricavark (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:CRIN. Johnlp (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete it as this is established by previous AfDs that bios of these players should not be all stats. I don't think we will ever have coverage from which we can write enough biography for him. Not discussed in detail by multiple sources so we can write enough without WP:OR. Name-checked only by match records in different sources which only verify him per WP:V but this still fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into a list of players by club. Raw statistics are not sufficent for a biographical article. Reyk _YO! 10:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The article has THREE inline citations from independent reliable sources and, although there is limited information about the subject in English-language sources, WP:NEXIST applies because significant Sinhalese sources do exist and have been proven (see article footnote) to contain useful extra information. Note too that BLP1E is inapplicable to sportspeople so the nominator's rationale is invalid, especially as his other comments about "secondary sources since 2009" and "none in 2017" make no sense whatsoever. Finally, article passes WP:CRIN per Johnlp above. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional rationale for keep. Per power~enwiki at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I. Kudigame, this article qualifies as a procedural keep because it complies with a subject specific guideline (i.e., WP:CRIN) and, procedurally, a consensus cannot overturn either the three core policies or the five pillars. WP:Notability is not one of the CCPOL and the article passes each of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. Re the 5PI, this article clearly qualifies as valid content for a specialised almanac.

Furthermore, per DGG at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. Dinaparna, "the correct interpretation of presumed in WP is the same as in the real world – it will be considered to be the case unless there is evidence to show otherwise" and so it follows that "presumed notability means the subject meeting the presumption is notable unless it can be demonstrated that it is not". No one has demonstrated non-notability and the subject clearly complies with its subject specific criteria.

Finally, per I JethroBT when closing the directly relevant Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) (2nd nomination) with a keep result, "there's no dispute that the individual played cricket professionally, and we generally keep articles on professional players". He went on to confirm that "the article has been improved and new sources have been added both before and after this AfD, which is consistent with the notion that coverage of this individual may be available, even if it is hard to access (as evidenced by notes in the discussion) and not present in the article at this time (as a result of which) some early recommendations to delete (were) re-evaluated in that light". The additional information came from a Sinhalese newspaper proving WP:NEXIST, as is the case with any Sri Lankan first-class cricketer. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was thinking of NAcing this, but decided my head and neck look better before some zealot shows up. Thought about relisting, but this !vote of mine will be enough that the reviewing admin will probably accept. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:30, 1 November 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Harmon[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as the mayor of a city with a population of 45K, which is not large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on a mayor. The article is not reliably sourced well enough to pass the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our criteria for local officeholders, either, as it's sourced only to a minimal selection of WP:ROUTINE local coverage of the type that's simply expected to exist for any mayor anywhere: two pieces of election-results coverage, and one article about her giving a speech about her policy priorities a few days later when she was still just mayor-elect. In a city this size, what we require to deem a mayor notable is not just verification that she exists, but substantial evidence that she's more notable than most other small-city mayors: either a lot more coverage than this, or evidence that her coverage is expanding beyond the purely local. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in local, regional, and national sources. An example for the latter is linked here gidonb (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an article about her — it's an article that just briefly namechecks her existence as one example of a wider trend. That's not significant coverage for the purposes of getting a mayor past WP:NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep San Luis Obispo is enough of a city for their mayor to be notable. 190.10.8.116 (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of a mayor is fundamentally dependent on how well they can be reliably sourced, not on the size of the city. For large cities (100K minimum), we may give them a chance at improvement by flagging them for "refimprove" and keeping them for a while even if the sourcing is inadequate at first, but they're still not exempted from having to be improved and can still be deleted if the sourcing remains inadequate. But in a city of just 45K, the sourcing has to be solid right up front before the article is allowed to exist at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Being used in one article to illustrate a supposed trend in politics, does not show the individual is notable. Being mayor of such a minor place is not on its own sign of notability, and there is not enough coverage of the subject to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Not notable despite her role.Acnetj (talk) 04:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NPOL doesn't strongly suggest any outcome, and there's not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient coverage in sources to meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 08:29, 29 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. Player is outside the scope of WP:BLP1E. The fact that no sources have been added since 2009 appears to be irrelevant. Article could use expansion (If possible/sources available) but does qualify for inclusion per/passes WP:NCRIC. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wenura Caldera[edit]

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

No secondary sources since 2009. None found in 2017. Fails WP:BLP1E. Rhadow (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POINT OF ORDER. Sports people are expressly outside scope of BLP1E and this is yet another misrepresentation by this nominator who has been warned. The AfD is invalid and disruptive. Jack | ^{talk page} 23:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Placing a bogus warning template on someone's talk page, just so you can go around everywhere to say "THEY'VE BEEN WARNED!", is poor form IMO. Reyk _YO! 07:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The warning is legitimate because of misrepresentation of guidelines and we will see if Rhadow respects BLP1E in future. If he does, then all well and good. I suggest you refrain from both WP:Wikistalking and bullshitting. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - with the greatest of respect, how is it taking you so long to find articles you don't like, decide you don't like them, and then nominate them for deletion, when they're all probably in the same categories? Bobo . 15:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it has been proven, time and time again, that CI and CA are sources maintained independently of the sport and each other, so this is an outright mistruth. If you wish to argue based on the fact that you believe one match to be too low a bar, individual AfDs are not the place to do it. Bobo . 15:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nom rationale is invalid. Lepricavark (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:CRIN. Needs the "external link" converting to an inline citation, but CricketArchive is a perfectly acceptable secondary source. Johnlp (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me. Force of habit. Once again, I point out that I created this article in 2009, and its prose content has remained entirely unchanged since then (which is the first time I've ever said that regarding an article up for AfD). As I've mentioned elsewhere, it is suspicious that the WP:IDONTLIKEIT cabal appear to have turned up eight years after this should have been made an issue. By itself I think this should render the nominations as timewasting... Bobo . 23:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- See WP:SPORTCRIT --A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] The subject of this article fails. Rhadow (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple, yes. Published, yes, online like 99 percent of citations on all pages on Wikipedia. Please define "non-trivial", the word "trivial" has at least eight meanings, some of which even contradict each other... I'd be very interested in inventing a game called "Non-trivial pursuit". Reliable, yes, as has been proven over and over again and can be verified by a second independent source in almost all instances. Intellectually independent, please define. Independent of the subject, unequivocally yes, though when we're referring to sources relating to a subject, is anything independent of any subject? That's incredibly flimsy phrasing. Bobo . 23:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete it as this is established by previous AfDs that bios of these players should not be all stats. I don't think we will ever have coverage from which we can write enough biography for him. Not discussed in detail by multiple sources so we can write enough without WP:OR. Name-checked only by match records in different sources which only verify him per WP:V but this still fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into a list of players by club. Clearly aggregations of raw statistics are insufficient material on which to base a biographical article. Reyk _YO! 10:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The article has THREE inline citations from independent reliable sources and, although there is limited information about the subject in English-language sources, WP:NEXIST applies because significant Sinhalese sources do exist and have been proven (see article footnote) to contain useful extra information. Note too that BLP1E is inapplicable to sportspeople so the nominator's rationale is invalid, especially as his other comments about "secondary sources since 2009" and "none in 2017" make no sense whatsoever. Finally, article passes WP:CRIN per Johnlp above. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional rationale for keep. Per power~enwiki at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I. Kudigame, this article qualifies as a procedural keep because it complies with a subject specific guideline (i.e., WP:CRIN) and, procedurally, a consensus cannot overturn either the three core policies or the five pillars. WP:Notability is not one of the CCPOL and the article passes each of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. Re the 5PI, this article clearly qualifies as valid content for a specialised almanac.

Furthermore, per DGG at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. Dinaparna, "the correct interpretation of presumed in WP is the same as in the real world – it will be considered to be the case unless there is evidence to show otherwise" and so it follows that "presumed notability means the subject meeting the presumption is notable unless it can be demonstrated that it is not". No one has demonstrated non-notability and the subject clearly complies with its subject specific criteria.

Finally, per I JethroBT when closing the directly relevant Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) (2nd nomination) with a keep result, "there's no dispute that the individual played cricket professionally, and we generally keep articles on professional players". He went on to confirm that "the article has been improved and new sources have been added both before and after this AfD, which is consistent with the notion that coverage of this individual may be available, even if it is hard to access (as evidenced by notes in the discussion) and not present in the article at this time (as a result of which) some early recommendations to delete (were) re-evaluated in that light". The additional information came from a Sinhalese newspaper proving WP:NEXIST, as is the case with any Sri Lankan first-class cricketer. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:19, 25 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Simon Johnson[edit]

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

Not notable as a person Natureium (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the medical procedure itself may be notable, but the first patient isn't (after all, someone has to be the first to receive any new treatment). No evidence he's notable for anything else. Neiltonks (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Medical patients and human test subjects are not generally notable. He (or someone with the same name) did catch a fish recently - [2] - but that doesn't seem terribly notable either.Icewhiz (talk) 16:16, 24 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  14:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Gazette (Colchester)[edit]

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

Fails notability (WP:GNGs and WP:NNEWSPAPER) in particular and there is a lack of sources.

Sources 1 and 2 appear to be directories (i.e not showing notability) and sources 3 and 4 only appear to reference the Colchester Gazette in passing only. With no notable and acceptable sources, the article has to be deleted. GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 14:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - daily newspaper, source 1 is not a directory but the Victoria County History which describes the setting up of the newspaper. Source 3 is entirely about the newspaper, not a passing mention. Warofdreams talk 14:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current article presents sufficient sources to justify a finding of notability, especially if we assume good faith about the cited offline sources. I also note a variety of quotes from and references to this paper in articles from other (larger) papers, suggesting notability per the criterion mentioned at Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Newspapers, magazines and journals. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:06, 24 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Linford[edit]

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

I can't find evidence that the article subject meets WP:PROF. Marquardtika (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Associate professor who does not meet WP:PROF. agtx 18:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only 71 cites on GS, not remotely enough WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:Prof, not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:28, 26 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 merge to List of England international footballers. There's clear consensus here that this should not remain as a stand-alone list in its current form. It's less clear which of several possible re-organizations is the preferred one. I'm calling this a merge to List of England international footballers, largely because the XFDcloser software requires me to specify a target. However, I'll leave it up to whoever performs the merge to read over the whole discussion here and consider if any of the other organizational structures make sense (perhaps with further discussion on the talk pages). It's clear that this isn't going to be a straight deletion (i.e. admin action won't be required to delete anything) so no need for further heavy-weight AfD process. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of England international footballers (alphabetical)[edit]

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

Complete list of footballers to have played for the England national football team, which is merely an extension of the List of England international footballers article (that article is limited to players with 10+ caps). Either the extended data is not wanted, per WP:NOTSTATS, or it is wanted and should go on the main article. Either way, the (alphabetical) article is redundant. OZOO (t) (c) 13:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. OZOO (t) (c) 14:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. OZOO (t) (c) 14:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. OZOO (t) (c) 14:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. OZOO (t) (c) 14:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete I think it is overall of footballers, but these two articles are similar, most of footballers are unnecessary to write on. So no need to keep. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for clubs, the norm is to have about three articles broken down by numbers of appearances (as in for example Wikipedia:Featured topics/York City F.C.). I would therefore suggest that the relevant players on this list be moved to a new article at List of England international footballers (1–9 caps), at which point this list will be redundant -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant list that covers material already found elsewhere. No opinion yet on ChrisTheDude's suggestion. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main list, for completeness. The <10-capped players actually aren't covered elsewhere, other than in the Category:England international footballers, and in principle they belong in the main list. But as Chris says above, footballer lists are often split on grounds of manageability – a single table with 1000+ entries is far from easy to either read or edit – and standard practice is to make the split(s) by number of appearances. So in practice, Rename to List of England international footballers (1–9 caps), remove those entries with more than 9, and link this "new" page from the 10+ caps List of England international footballers. Thus making it clear that the two articles are parts of the same complete list, as per List of Belgium international footballers (21+ caps), List of Belgium international footballers (5–20 caps), and the as-yet-redlinked List of Belgium international footballers (1–4 caps). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main list as per Struway2. Giant Snowman 07:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Struway2's proposal in principle. However, I'd propose two new lists: List of England international footballers (3–9 caps) and List of England international footballers (1–2 caps). You'd be amazed how many players have one or two caps. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rename and split if required for size manageability per above suggestions. ClubOranje^T 09:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for me I would merge to List of England international footballers as it is basically creating the same article again. Matt294069 is coming 11:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not the same article, as it includes players with fewer than 10 caps. The suggestion to split would still require this list - how can a list split across multiple pages be sorted alphabetically? This should be List of England international footballers; that list is incomplete and should be renamed to "List of England international footballers with 10 or more caps" or something similar if these are not merged. Peter James (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and cut down per Struway2. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and cull per Struway2. One article for 1-9 caps, and one for everyone else, with proper DAB hatnotes. Any further segmentation would make it harder to find individuals through sorting, and would be harder to maintain as players cross the thresholds. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Purposes of the list include searching for a name, for the most capped players or chronologically for players who are likely to have made appearances at the same time. Splitting by number of caps, beyond a small number at the top, makes the list less useful. Peter James (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Worth noting that it has been standard practice for a decade or more to split lists of club players over multiple lists as per the York City example linked somewhere above.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 2 November 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. Will post to creator's talk page about draftification. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle McClean[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:59, 24 October 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) 08:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Why are people still allowed to remove prods without a reason??? Number 5 7 15:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't know why the creator doesn't keep it in draft form or in his sandbox until he plays a league game. As of right now he fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Govvy (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- TBF he seems to be a pretty new editor, maybe he doesn't realise that is an option -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:20, 29 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. No prejudice against the creation of List of Panadura Sports Club players. A Train^talk 07:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Panadura Sports Club single-appearance players[edit]

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

Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers which was created by the same editor. Pointless exercise which adds no value. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC) Jack | ^{talk page} 13:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there is an article which needs creating, it would be List of Panadura Sports Club cricketers. This would render this page unnecessary. "Lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers" is a nonsense, inapplicable "guideline" which only suits those who have cried "I don't like the fact that these articles which meet criteria should be allowed on Wikipedia. I would accept an article of List of Panadura Sports Club cricketers, similar to our other lists, if only the currently fervent deletionist cabal understands that the only way to achieve true NPOV is to apply the same guideline everywhere across every cricket article. Jack, how would you feel about List of Panadura Sports Club cricketers superseding this article? Bobo . 13:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the "same editor" who proposed this article and the now deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers. It would only make sense that I am in favor of keeping this article. Rhadow (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It makes no sense at all to keep this article which is effectively just as useless as the previous one deleted. Ajf773 (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - forgive me for repeating what I wrote above but I guess I need to write it as a comment for it to "count" (so to speak), List of Panadura Sports Club cricketers would make more sense and completely negate the need for this article. Every English county has an article such as this and it would make sense for other teams in other countries to also have these teams added too. The only question I would have regarding "per team" lists is where to "draw the line". Bobo . 16:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TNT. A better way to do this is to produce lists of players by club, rather than an arbitrary number of appearances. The non-notable one-game players where we only know statistics and frequently not even the full name would be listed there, and of course actually notable players would be bluelinked in addition to being listed. This is the solution I've been suggesting for quite some time now, and it's interesting to see Bobo now on board with it when just a few weeks ago he and friends were bombarding me with abusive commentary for recommending the exact same thing. Needless to say, my delete vote here should not be construed as somehow support for keeping the individual microstubs as separate articles. Reyk _YO! 16:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"On board with it"? With what? I believe that there should be players lists for all first-class sides and individual articles for all first-class cricketers, and have believed so from moment one. What have I ever claimed otherwise? I believe that the only neutral way of treating articles like this is all first-class players for all first-class teams in lists, and all first-class players bluelinked regardless of whether someone happens to have heard of them... Bobo . 16:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. An almost carbon copy of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers. A useless, uninteresting, list of non notable cricketers and using sources that require a subscription to be verified. Ajf773 (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ajf773, I respect you but that is not the issue. The issue is that this list cannot be independently verified, nor can anybody be certain that it will ever be complete without checking and validating dozens of different links whose content may be changed at any time. Bobo . 22:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One-appearance players? Two-appearance players? How many of these lists could there be? It's nonsensical. There should be a List of Panadura Sports Club cricketers which would make this and any other lists redundant. And because all of the cricketers on such a list would pass WP:CRIN, they can be presumed to be notable. Johnlp (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Containing every first-class name rather than the odd bluelink which is what happens on a lot of other "players lists". Bobo . 23:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTN and WP:NCRICKET. I hate the subject and normally I'd cite WP:WTAF. However, each player is notable (sadly) and LISTN says that the list can exist since the group by selection is notable. Assuming the citations come from a reliable source, any !vote to delete is IDONTLIKEIT. I'm all for merging this content into List of lesser-known cricketers or some such. Bobo192 makes a valid point about WP:V so I reserve the right to change my position if the present sourcing really isn't tenable. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point that, although this list may comply with LISTN, it is NO USE to anyone because of its limited scope. It therefore adds no value and the better approach by far is List of Panadura Sports Club cricketers as proposed by Bobo and Johnlp above. Apart from anything else, the "how to use instructions" on the talk page reveal a mischievous intent which breaches WP:MERGE. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, your rationale is unsound. Keep the article on randomly hashed-together single appearance players even though you know every single one is worthy of an article? This is a contradiction. This is an article based on cobbled-together nonsense and I am willing to bet that not a single person is willing to complete the list or maintain it beyond its current state. But I'm willing to be proven wrong. Bobo . 15:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly fine seeing this content at List of Panadura Sports Club cricketers. AfD isn't the place for a discussion to move an article. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This makes more sense than any other solution and is, I think, the one we are gradually gravitating towards although it will require someone to do the legwork. Bobo . 15:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, no one is willing to create List of Panadura Sports Club cricketers at the present time and so this pointless exercise with its limited scope should be deleted and not moved. As for WP:DEL, an article does not have to meet any of its guidelines to be deleted. Articles do get deleted because they are unfit for purpose, like this one is. You should be aware that there is history too with the creator of the article and his motives are highly questionable, the talk page message being a case in point. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would have been willing to do so in the olden days Jack. In a perfect world every regular first-class side would have a list of first-class players by team. But not while our project is under fire from those who refuse to work to years' worth of guidelines (which have been constantly refined on their terms), Sadly this would change the rationales to, "Why does this player qualify for a list and an article? Which is obvious nonsense... Bobo . 15:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, Bobo, I've got a comprehensive list of Sri Lankan first-class players (no LA or T20 though) in an XL. It's not yet in a format that could be applied here because it's players per season and so someone like the esteemed Murali recurs twenty-odd times. I might be prepared to do something with it in the near future. Watch the space, I suppose, or the redlink

. That stuff from power-enwiki is great. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sri Lankan cricketers who debuted during the 1999-2000 Premier Trophy season is a teensy bit unwieldy for my liking. Bobo . 16:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A list of lesser known cricketers would most certainly fail WP:LISTN as there is no reasonable criteria for being more or less known to the public. It's a terrible concept for a list article. Ajf773 (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ajf773, well said. That is a very good point. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 21:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:WRITEITFIRST. If the players are notable create their articles and include them on List of Panadura Sports Club players. If they aren't notable, they shouldn't be on any article. Seems to me some editors are trying to get non-notable individuals onto Wikipedia through the back door or are too lazy to create a comprehensive List of Panadura Sports Club players.--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question to Obi2canibe So do you think a single-appearance player with a scorecard and no press is notable according to WP:NCRIC or fails WP:BLP1E?

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MoneyConf[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable event. Significant RS coverage not found; article is cited to passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP sources. For a related AfD, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collision Conference. This article is similar in concept and execution and should be likewise deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first five citations have nothing to do with the subject itself, and the last three are primary sources. The remaining source isn't enough to establish the event's notability. Delete. Alexius08 (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 13:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:34, 28 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BitConnect[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The sources are non-independent sources or press releases that do not establish notability. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 05:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating this related article created by the same group of socks:

If the company is not notable, then it is likely that neither is the currency. SmartSE (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bitcoin companies tend to have walled garden like references, sourced primarily to a few minor trade publications that republish their press releases. I don't see anything here that's better - the usual mentions in passing plus press releases and their reprints. WP:CORPSPAM. PS. Creator got blocked for socking, like serious paid-for spammer. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the 10th biggest cryptocurrency on the market: https://coinmarketcap.com It isn't some unknown and obscure startup. If this cryptocurrency warrants deletion then so does every other cryptocurrency, especially the lower market cap ones. The better option is to clean it up instead of making it disappear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.125.247 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This coin is now the 8th biggest by marketcap https://coincheckup.com Additionally it appears on the List of cryptocurrencies meaning that it is relevant enough to be included. There are over 1000 cryptocurrencies on the market. It seems improper to remove the 8th biggest one. Also, after some looking through, it seems very odd and suspect that a call for deletion of this article happened about 2 days following the inclusion of the 1st sentence "BitConnect is a high-yield investment program, which is a type of ponzi scheme". Administrators should be vigilant of someone trying to bury the exposure of this article. The timing of the call for deletion doesn't seem like a coincidence. — 2604:2000:69D4:AE00:FDB7:141A:F152:6B96 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 14:37-14:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

Delete. User Piotrus summed it up very well: press coverage reprinting press releases is not notability, and a determined sock army trying to keep it afloat under a variety of page names* doesn't change that. – Athaenara ✉ 05:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(* including BitConnect Coin, Draft:BitConnect Coin, BitConnect, Bitconnect coin, perhaps others. – Athaenara ✉ 05:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC) )[reply]

Keep Lots of cryptocurrencies that appear on wikipedia are smaller and less known than this one and also suffer from a similar minimal amount of press coverage because of the niche nature of this subject. No other cryptocurrency page is being called for deletion for some reason, but this one has been. I also checked the above user's claim and it does seem that the timing of this flag for deletion came right after the 1st sentence was included, which makes it suspect. A better option, in my opinion, is to fix this page up and include citations that the community deems well-known enough. As has been previously said, this particular cryptocurrency appears in the top 10 according to marketcap and thus targeting this crypto and not any other one whose marketcaps are smaller and also have a minimal amount of press coverage seems unfair and biased. Let's fix this page up instead of making it disappear all together. Lastly, Bitconnect coin is also the same company and so merging these two articles may seem more appropriate. - Maximus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.245.160.163 (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 13:13, 24 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. Rather than a 3rd relist with zero participation. WP:REFUND applies. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Ajdad Islamabad[edit]

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

Local newspaper with no notability found i.e. probably a newbie type. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 08:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 08:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 13:12, 24 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. Rather than a 3rd relist with zero participation. WP:REFUND applies. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Rozan[edit]

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

Local newspaper with no notability found. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 08:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 08:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 13:12, 24 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  14:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TouchMail[edit]

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

Article fails general notability requirements WP:GNG. 50% of the sources happen to be press releases thus being unreliable WP:V. Article is also written from a mostly promotional tone of view as well WP:PROMOTION. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The other 50% of the sources (n.b. there are two sources at the moment) is a Time magazine article about the software. There's a lot of hits from a WP:BEFORE (like this NextWeb article and numerous Geekwire articles. I'm also at a loss as to how the tone of this article could be read as promotional. It is four very blandly descriptive sentences—if I hired someone to promote me and they came back with an article like this I'd refuse to pay. A Train^talk 20:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:CORPSPAM Provides a good points on articles like this one. Although it is not a policy it provides several good points. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For example... ? A Train^talk 15:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Wikipedia:CORPSPAM: "Most of companies and product pages I nominate for deletion have several, if not dozens of inline references. Many are to their own pages (in other words – self-published), but quite a few are masked better. It is quite common for slightly smarter artspammers to use other websites – such services are cheaply offered by various PR companies, who maintain extensive portals filled with dime-a-dozen press releases such as PRWeb, many of them are distributed through news sites and appear in search engine results, giving them a surface appearance of legitimacy."

"Let me now define spam in the context of this op-ed as advertisements masquerading as articles (in short, artspam) rather than external links spamming. The latter is more easily identifiable through automated tools, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam and others seem to be managing it well enough, as far as I can tell. What I am concerned with is the former: articles that fail notability criteria, aiming to promote a certain topic, not (only) through biased wording, but through their very existence ("I/we/our product is/are on Wikipedia, hence we are important/respectable/famous/encyclopedic")." FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 00:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has notability. Editor-1 (talk) 08:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 13:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:A Train's analysis. Coverage at TheNextWeb and Geekwire in addition to the Time article is enough to clear the bar. gongshow talk 01:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article was created by a sock-puppet too, but has some other edits which do not make it fit CSD G5 according to policy. (G5. Creations by banned or blocked users) FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 00:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Repurpose. Why can't TouchMail be the initial entry for an annotated / List of / Comparison article? Pi314m (talk) 09:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps people should see WP:Articles_for_deletion/GyazMail Keep @ 15:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC), who backs up comment of "Actually I perceive these recurring requests for deletion as aggravating and pointless trolling." and cites more sources. Pi314m (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generally any item which does not have an article is removed/deleted from a comparison/list. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 17:08, 28 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. Sandstein 12:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrik Virtanen[edit]

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

Was prodded as an unreferenced BLP. Someone added a reference and de-prodded (as they were perfectly entitled to). However there's nothing in the article to suggest he's notable in Wiki terms - he seems to be simply a working journalist and author. I can't find any better references in English, though I accept there could be some in Swedish, which I don't speak. Neiltonks (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So this is not obvious if you don't speak Swedish, especially not as the article has a rather weird focus on less significant details, but Virtanen is something of a household name in Sweden. He's written a couple of books, hosted a television show, hosted a radio show on national radio and so on, but mainly he's a well-known columnist in the largest Swedish tabloid – not just any journalist. I've started adding some information and references. /Julle (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assume almost all sources to be in Swedish or possibly Finnish. /Julle (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was the one who initially PROD'd the page but support keeping it after Julle's contributions and adding reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Julle, and especially in light of the improvements to the page since it was nomimnated. --bonadea contributions talk 11:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable before yesterday, even more notable now when allegations of rape has been published in WP:RS, which has led to a debate on press ethics. I believe that every major Swedish newspaper had a story about it today.Sjö (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I didn't want to bring it up when I posted as it was pretty much absent from reliable sources at the time, but Virtanen has been one of the persons at the heart of the Swedish #metoo debate over the last week. /Julle (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's a known Swedish media personality and if we look long and hard enough I am convinced there will be interviews & articles about him in WP:RS over the last few years. AadaamS (talk) 07:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Covers WP:GNG. Very wel known media person. Article could be improved but article status is secondary to notability. BabbaQ (talk) 23:36, 29 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. Sandstein 12:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jayson Wayne[edit]

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

Non-notable musician with no coverage in RS that I can find. Sources included do not even so much as make a mention of him nor are they remotely considered in-depth coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this bio fails all 12 points of WP:MUSICIAN, maybe notable in future but not now Ammarpad (talk) 07:33, 31 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. Sandstein 12:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kiah Roache-Turner[edit]

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

This BLP has been tagged for over two years as being poorly sourced. It has three footnotes: Rotten Tomatoes & Metacritic are reviews of his film rather than being about him, and the third is a brief puff-piece from his alma mater. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless we can turn up a decent filmography, etc. the subject seems not notable. Aoziwe (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the film may be notable but there is no indication through independent and substantial coverage in reliable sources that Roache-Turner themself is notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:52, 27 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. Sandstein 12:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prajakta Potnis[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement, nor WP:ARTIST. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems like a notable artist, based on published sources and the places she is associated with. For example, Kunstlerhaus Bethanien, in Berlin, is a serious place. GNG at minimum is met. I will add this source and others to article. 96.127.242.251 (talk) 04:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added several decent refs. Here is a nice profile in the Indian Express.96.127.242.251 (talk) 05:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A brief mention in a New York Times review does not hurt either.96.127.242.251 (talk) 05:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily expandable, I've dropped in some more from the Indian Express article, which explains her artistic background. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – meets WP:GNG. Previous participants have already shown some quality coverage. Here's some more: The Hindu, ET, Mint/Mint, IE,Art21, & Outlook. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:17, 28 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. After giving it an extra 6 hours or so to see if there's any more discussion to be had, it is pretty much as I'd expected. If anything, consensus to delete is even clearer. I'm not opposed to recreation as a redirect, and the suggestion to expand coverage is a nice thought, but of course there needs to be coverage in reliable sources to expand our own coverage, and there's no evidence that there is enough for this article to exist. ansh 666 07:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grigory Granaturov[edit]

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

Article gives insufficient context that this individual is notable. WP:BEFORE [3] shows mirror sites and passing references, such as list inclusion, but insufficient evidence that this individual is notable. With adequate WP:HEY improvement, perhaps article could be kept, but as it sits, insufficient indicia of notability Montanabw^(talk) 22:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Are you serious? Grigory Granaturov was the president of the Federation of International Bandy. In what way is he even to be considered to be not relevant enough for an article? Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:HEY. A three-sentence article fails to provide sufficient indicia of notability. Also, attacking other editors is not appropriate; focus on content and sourcing. If you improve your article to demonstrate that, whatever Bandy is, it's important enough that its officials are notable, then I am willing (as I stated above) to reassess. Montanabw^(talk) 03:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know what Bandy is then why not look it up in an encyclopedia? It's a major sport in Russia, Scandinavia and some other places. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the length of the article which proves notability, but the content, the information it gives you. An article saying only "Donald Trump is the president of the USA" would prove notability of its subject, even if extremely short and lacking any sources. A president of the USA is always notable. I am of the opinion, a president of the FIB is too. A lack of sources is another problem than the alleged lack of notability and shouldn't affect the view on the notability issue. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to go read WP:GNG again. An article that said "Donald Trump is the president of the USA" would be what is called a passing mention and is specifically called out as not being good enough to proove notability. It requires articles to go into significant depth on the subject in order to provide notability. There is no hard an fast rule on how long that is obviously but a single sentence would never cut it, typically you need a couple paragraphs. -DJSasso (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to go read WP:GNG again. A US president is always notable. The sentence about passing mentions is about how facts are collected from sources, it is not about how Wikipedia articles are written. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of sources is how notability is defined. WP:N is quite explicit: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Ravenswing 22:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is how verifiability is defined. An article on Wikipedia must have both notability and verifiability, but they are not defining each other. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG doesn't pick him up as being a notable president of bandy. While I disagree with WP:NOTINHERITED as an essay, when combined with the WP:GNG this subject is a bit of a poster boy for concept, no matter how wrong it is. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:28, 8 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 09:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, don't suggest deletions just because you don't know the subject. Boot Blues (talk) 08:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Russian Wikipedia article cites this extensive article about Granaturov along with this and this. That's enough sourcing available online for notability, and, for a subject who retired at just the time that the World Wide Web was being invented, we can expect much more to be available offline. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be interested in seeing this content added to expand the article so that it demonstrated notability. See WP:HEY Montanabw^(talk) 02:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The last two links definitely wouldn't go towards notability, one looks to not be independent and the other is just a database type listing. The first one I am not familiar enough with the site say for certain if it passes muster, leaning towards no but I am investigating further. -DJSasso (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the contrary, they show the notability which already is evident in the article as it is. I am working on editing this into the article and will add it when this discussion is over. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually WP:GNG requires sources to be independent and to be in significant depth on the individual. It specifically calls out that they can't be WP:ROUTINE coverage or passing mentions such as sports databases. -DJSasso (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the Russian-language sources mentioned
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the article suggests he passes WP:BIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Piotrus, WP:BIO says nothing about sports executives. Neither does Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Would you therefore vote "delete" for the presidents of International Olympic Committee or FIFA too? Boot Blues (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:BIO actually does, it has a section for basic notability for everyone who isn't specifically listed. -DJSasso (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed. And there is a clear difference between IOC/FIFA and Bandy. The first two are near-household names, the latter one is very niche. (I haven't even heard of Bandy until this AfD). So while the presidents of the first two may well qualify because every president of a major organization is notable, the subject here fails because his organization is not major, but rather, pretty minor (in the scope of, well, everything). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any evidence of meeting the WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 12:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any evidence the subject meets the GNG either, and as much to the point, the keep proponents haven't supplied any. Attempting to draw parallels to the president of the IOC or FIFA is flat out absurd: anyone want to bet it'd take me as much as half an hour to find a dozen good references for them? Ravenswing 22:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ravenswing: I'd actually take your bet, with regards to at least some of them. But per my point above, they'd be auto-notable due to the virtue of their position, and the subject here isn't, so outside of taking you up on your bet I totally agree that the comparison is absurd :) Or a failed strawman... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Heh, I've got a newspapers.com sub, which is an invaluable tool for sourcing articles; it's easier than you might imagine to get 1940s newspaper cites, for one. Ravenswing 08:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I protest the reopening of this AfD after @Ansh666: closed it. As I stated on Ansh666's talk page: "It's already run its course. This AfD's been open for nearly a month, it's been weeks since there's been a new editor advocating anything other than delete, and the only discussion the keep proponents are pushing now is filibustering. There is no obligation to hold an AfD open indefinitely just because one side doesn't like the outcome." No guideline provides presumptive notability for a bandy federation president, and the keep proponents (those who've actually propounded a rationale, anyway) have failed to provide sources that would satisfy WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Ravenswing 00:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- *shrug* I'll give it another ~6 hours before reclosing if nothing else comes up. ansh 666 00:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any WP:RS which would support the notion that this person meets WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Federation_of_International_Bandy#Presidents, and expand coverage of all the past presidents. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:36, 26 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. Bad dog! No article for you! Sandstein 12:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Izzy the Frenchie[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Not a notable dog. The references are all the same viral video of the dog taking a bath. Having "a large internet and social media following" isn't sufficient for notability. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ONEEVENT. Could be mentioned on some list I guess... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree Piotrus that the dog "could be mentioned on some list." It just isn't notable. Yes there are some reliable sources like NBC News but Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Reporting on such subjects is inherently sensationalist yellow journalism and thus falls under WP:SENSATION. The subject is not fit to be mentioned anywhere on this project. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ONEEVENT. Lepricavark (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the PROD nominator. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:SENSATION. Pretty much anyone and anything can become an internet sensation in this day and age, and may even be reported on, but such sensations do not having WP:LASTING notability. Content like this is becoming a serious problem for this project. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:58, 25 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 merge to List of Atlantic City casinos that never opened. It's rare that we have a merge target in an AfD that's this much on point. Sandstein 12:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hard Rock Hotel and Casino Atlantic City (uncompleted development)[edit]

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL. This Hard Rock property never made it out of the planning stages. Also very little media coverage to bring notability. YborCityJohn (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is nothing WP:CRYSTAL here. This is a notable project that never got off the ground but is covered by ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete This is routine coverage of a failed project, at least what we're seeing here. Development projects are proposed all the time, and a lot of them go through, and some of them don't, and until there's more than the kind of coverage pretty much any project gets, I'm going to say "not notable", especially for the failures. Mangoe (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Atlantic City casinos that never opened. This article could be trimmed to about two paragraphs to cover just the important facts, and is unlikely to ever need to grow longer to justify a standalone article. Toohool (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per User:Toohool's excellent suggestion. Merging to a suitable list-article, even creating the list-article if necessary, should be done more often in AFDs. Here, the list-article exists and is spot-on relevant. --do ncr am 00:08, 29 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. Sandstein 12:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sushmita Chadha[edit]

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

Non-notable businessperson. Longhair\^talk 05:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A search for her name on the subject's employer's website produces nothing and my searches are finding nothing beyond a few passing in-role mentions and inclusion in a list of names in this "Bureaucracy Today" announcement. Fails WP:ANYBIO,WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Longhair\^talk 12:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a one-sentence article with only a single reference to support it, and the single reference does not supply a large amount of information about the person. About all it says is that this person is the Chief Executive Officer of the State Bank of India. Vorbee (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She appears to be CEO of State Bank of India Sydney. The Central Board of the State Bank of India is shown here and does not include her. AllyD (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find anywhere near sufficient NEXIST to support GNG. EXIST is not enough. Aoziwe (talk) 21:20, 24 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. Sandstein 12:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lacie Heart[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks significant RS coverage that discusses the subject directly and in detail. No awards; just nominations. No significant impact on the genre. The article is cited to interviews, industry publicity materials and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a search for sources doesn't bring up anything other than gossipy tabloid fodder. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress. No where near notable. In the past Wikipedia has been severaly criticized for having way too many articles on pornographic actresses, and way to few on female writers, journalists, lawyers, doctors and judges. The situation has somewhat improved on all fronts, although it probably could use some work. However do to the nature of heavy promotion in pornography we need to remain vigilant against articles on non-notable performers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert This is probably outside the scope for this AfD, but I generally give WP:PORNBIO short shrift, and consider WP:GNG and WP:BLP instead, and perhaps it's time to retire that criteria gracefully? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would support such a retirement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO or even WP:PORNBIO. --Jack Frost (talk) 07:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 13:28, 29 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. Sandstein 12:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Painting Fiesta![edit]

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

Self-sourced, the only other mentions are of one-off events, a WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial, promotion piece for a local business. Not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 18:34, 25 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 merge to United States federal civil service. Sandstein 10:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Burrowing (politics)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. Zigzig20s (talk) 10:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete breaks WP:NOTDIC. Batternut (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article violates WP:NOTDIC. –Miles Edgeworth^Talk 16:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there someplace we can merge this? We have plenty of glossaries of specialized terminology - do we have one for politics? bd2412 T 03:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into United States federal civil service. It doesn't seem there is a glossary for this -- but this does seem like something that warrants inclusion in that article. Nuke (talk) 16:55, 26 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. The article clearly has encyclopedic value. (non-admin closure) FITINDIA 06:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haidar Malik[edit]

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

Fails the general notability guideline (significant coverage). The only source is a passing mention in a book from the 1950s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Academicoffee71 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apparently an Afd created by a newbie account who might not have perhaps completely understood our WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR notability guidelines. Not much helped either by the quality of the current article. Haidar Malik is a historic personality, referred to by multiple scholars and authors for his uniquely iconoclastic representation of history of the Kashmir region in his year 1621 treatise Tarikh-i-Haidar Malik. Haidar Malik's life and work are covered significantly in innumerable books like Kashmir under the Sultans,[4] Dictionary of Indo-Persian literature,[5], Kashmiri Scholars Contribution to Knowledge and World Peace,[6], Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Cambridge,[7] Economic history of Kashmir during The Mughal period 1586 1819 AD, [8] and innumerable others. He's been oft quoted as being amongst the three most important historians of his times. The subject qualifies on both WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. I'll encourage the nominator to withdraw the nomination and to contact me on my talk page to understand better Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Warmly. Lourdes 09:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there are more sources, please put them into the article. I'm not great at citing non-internet sources Academicoffee71 (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Academicoffee71, I'll try to do that over this weekend (you can too, if you are interested). Sources not being cited within the article is not considered a valid reason for nominating an article for deletion. Would you consider withdrawing the nomination? Warmly, Lourdes 08:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- In dealing with that long ago, we cannot expect a large output. The alternative might be to merge the author-bio with an article on his book. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - As demonstrated, this passes WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. The nominator is reminded that, with the exception of biographies of living persons, sources do not have to be in the article to demonstrate notability, they only have to exist. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:54, 31 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 07:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harshita Dahiya[edit]

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

Delete: no evidence of notability provided whatsoever. Quis separabit? 03:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only notable for one event; that event being her death; in addition, she doesn't appear to have any notability before her death Spiderone 09:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:VICTIM requires demonstrable notability outside of the WP:BLP1E event. Although sources describe the subject as "a well-known Haryanvi folk singer and stage performer" [9] this seems to fall well short of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria. AllyD (talk) 18:35, 25 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 merge to List of Pokémon video games. Sandstein 12:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon: Generations[edit]

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

No evidence of long-term notability post-cancellation. Jdcomix (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I could find two additional sources, Destructoid and US Gamer. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A merge to List_of_Pokémon_video_games in an "unlicensed" section would be reasonable. --151.165.212.38 (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per above. Comatmebro (talk) 04:21, 24 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. Although opinions are divided, the "delete" arguments are more persuasive. While the "keep" side cites a number of sources, the "delete" side has shown in some detail that these sources amount to passing mentions, insubstantial coverage or are otherwise not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. The "keep" side has not rebutted that analysis. Sandstein 10:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars for Peace in the Middle East[edit]

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

Almost entirely SPS; other refs are passing mentions. a BEFORE search yielded not much more. This page is mostly a sea of name-dropping. Folks have been saying on the talk page since 2007 that this is just an advertisement for the organization. Time to go. Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If they're notable, I'm not seeing it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found some sources.Meet WP:GNG [[10]] [[11]]--Shrike (talk) 06:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another one [12]] all the sources I brought is much more then name dropping.--Shrike (talk) 07:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shrike who are you trying to fool? The third source helped me confirm my suspicions: the first (and third) source's content for the SPME are copied from the organization's own website; that is a primary source. And as for the second, it is predominantly a quote from the CEO -- another primary source of information as promotional as the other two.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter this all secondary sources by different authors.The secondary source may use primary source as its see fit..--Shrike (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't? They copied word-for-word an advertisement from the organization's own website. That is in no way a secondary source of information.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But those sources are "Independent of the subject"--Shrike (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copying material directly from the organization is the complete and total opposite of "independent of the subject".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the first source is a copy from their website and anyhow if its source not affiliated than its independent--Shrike (talk) 08:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shrike cites first, a book by Raphael Israeli, and, second, a book by Manfred Gerstenfeld. Both are perfectly valid sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Certainly does not pass our general notability guideline. The sources, including the ones Shrike is trying to pass off as in-depth coverage, are just as Jytdog described them -- name-dropping. Wikipedia is not meant to be used as an advertising mechanism for an organization hence another reason why deletion is appropriate.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Jytdog Did you notify the original author of the article?--Shrike (talk) 07:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A few hundred google-news hits. Quite a few book hits. 139 google scholar hits - mentioning them or referencing their studies (AUTHOR/PROF).Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"mentions" are not substantial discussion. Jytdog (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't all mentions. e.g. [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. They are cited and mentioned alot - which makes finding in-depth sourcing of them harder.Icewhiz (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

to repeat, "cited and mentioned" is not substantial discussion. Looking at those links (links to Google Books have all been shortened and changed to US google from Israel google):

[20] - this is some document hosted on a wiki called "powerbase". not reliable.
[21] - ok source, but has a passing mention - a paragraph that gives their mission statement
[22] - this is not a source I would use. It is called "Israel's Nightmares: Palestinian and Muslim Zombies Haunting Israel" published by something called the "Strategic Book Publishing & Rights Agency" which appears to be dicey. It has one longish paragraph that briefly describes it and states its mission.
[23] - this is an OK book, "American Jewry's Challenge: Conversations Confronting the Twenty-first Century" published by Rowman & Littlefield. It has 2 paragraphs, one very short, and one a quote from the CEO saying what they do. Not substantial discussion.
[24] - source is OK, "The UnCivil University: Intolerance on College Campuses" again Rowman & Littlefield. The actual page linked to is the footnotes. The real discussion is here and is again a brief paragraph.
[25] - this is "American Jewish Year Book 2013: The Annual Record of the North American Jewish Communities" an OK source. This organization is one of many in a list of organizations, described in paragraph. A directory entry.
[26] - this is called "Defeat, Trauma, Lesson: Israel Between Life and Extinction" again published by Strategic Book Publishing & Rights Agency. This is the exact same content as "Israel's Nightmares" above. Exact. Same.

I will say, as I have said in past AfDs, that it is poor practice to throw up a bunch of links without actually looking at them. This wastes everyone else's time and is bullshitting. Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Take a look at this [27] search on Inside Higher Ed, or this [28] one in the Chronicle of Higher Education, or this [29] one at Haaretz. Solid sources on the page and out there in all the places where you would expect to find them.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is more hand-wavy search results. Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jytdog although you assert that "Folks have been saying on the talk page since 2007 that this is just an advertisement for the organization." the fact is that the last time the talk page was edited, (the last time a comment was made) was in 2007. Several solid sources have been added since then, and they were on page when you arrived. A better move might have been to tag it for improvement. Moreover WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. I suggest that in the light of the sources found by User:Icewhiz you consider withdrawing what looks like an over hasty nomination. Also You're a very experienced editor, so it is odd that you have not notified the article creator of this AfD. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Please describe the refs you are bringing. Notifying the creator is optional. Please feel free to do it if you like. Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you also did not add this to any lists. Nor did the first editor to comment. You were , of course, not required to do so, but the fact that you - a highly experienced editor - did not choose to add it to any of the obvious lists, chose not to notify the page creator, do not appear to have run a very thorough WP:BEFORE, and are now taking a WP:BATTLEGROUND-type defensive posture does give this AfD Perhaps it is merely a case of a hasty WP:BEFORE and a careless nomination that skipped the usual courtesies. But I/P is such highly fraught, BATTLEGROUND territory that I believe that we should all behave like Caesar's wife - who was required to be above suspicion when wading in to the Middle East.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY I added several very sound sources to the page, all of the sources I just added go beyond mere mentions. Many more WP:RS exist and I hope that they will be added to the page, which can certainly be expanded based on solid sourcing that, as Icewhiz and Shrike demonstrate above, is not difficult to locate, even though searches are made somewhat more difficult by the many articles that mention SPME only briefly. I believe that the sources I have added carry the article past WP:GNG and answer all objections about adequacy of sourcing raised above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is another that discuss the topic of the article in depth [30]--Shrike (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this added content is promotional garbage, padding with quotes and repetition -- the article now says the same thing four or five times. Not encyclopedic. If consensus here wants WP to contain a promotional brochure for this organization, that is how it will go. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, a pro-Israel think tank, is certainly a valid source. The source in question is an article written by Leslie Wagner, Chancellor of the University of Derby, and published in a journal this think tank publishes, Jewish Political Studies Review. The fact that you may not like the political viewpoint of the JCPA or of the scholar who wrote the article does not make Wagner's analysis and description of SPME "promotional garbage."E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These kinds of claims about the prestige of various people/sources have nothing to do with with repetitive, promotional content nor with the refs being passing mentions. Saying so it not "battleground". You are getting mighty excited. Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the sourced added, the notability standard is satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn and E.M.Gregory. IIRC I'm the author or one of the authors of the entry. SPME is pretty active in Germany and there are many references to add, some positive, some negative, I should write a German version but I'm not that active on WP presently.
- de:Deutsch-Israelische_Gesellschaft, [31]
- de:Jüdische_Rundschau, [32]
- Die Tageszeitung, [33]
- Jewish Museum Munich, [34]
- Die Zeit, [35] (Judith Butler complains about them)
- Der Spiegel, [36]
- Junge Freiheit, [37]
- Federal Agency for Civic Education, [38] (cited in a footnote to bolster a proposition)

--tickle me 22:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked through each of the citations provided there, and again we have a bunch of passing mentions or worse...

a conference listing, where a speaker is from the organization. (does not help with N)
interview with CEO; in general interviews do not count toward N
Taz piece is a "guest commentary" with yet another passing mention
jewish museum piece is description of an exhibition , again a passing mention/diretory listing of a different kind
zeit/Butler piece - another commentary, and yes she complains about them in a paragraph
spiegel is a piece by someone from the board of the organization
book review, where it is mentioned that the author is part of this organization
BPB piece, as described, mentioned in a footnote.

None of these have "significant coverage". What is up with people bringing all these bad refs to the table here? Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Any organisation with chapters at Stanford University (stanford.edu), at Columbia University,^[1], at the University of Washington (washington.edu) and with Matthias Küntzel as co-founder of its German Chapter^[2] is, by definition, notable.

References

^ NAT HENTOFF (1 March 2005). "Columbia Still Unbecoming". The Village Voice. Retrieved 30 October 2017. Judith Jacobson is vice president and coordinator of the Columbia chapter of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East.
^ BENJAMIN WEINTHAL (14 February 2011). "ADL LAUDS GERMAN SCHOLAR FOR STUDY ON ANTI-SEMITISM". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 30 October 2017. Küntzel is an external research associate at the Vidal Sassoon Centre for The Study of Anti- Semitism at the Hebrew University. He teaches political science at a technical college in Hamburg and co-founded the German chapter of Scholars For Peace in the Middle East.

--XavierItzm (talk) 06:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are also not part of the notability criteria. Heavy-duty lobbying going on here. Jytdog (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"lobbying"??, User:Jytdog, precisely what are you accusing User:XavierItzm of? He hsa made a reasoned argument and, yes, we do indeed consider that when a notable person heads an organization, it enhances the the prestige and notability of that organization.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not an argument based on N. So not at all "reasoned", here in WP. You are overexcited. Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that here: [39] Jytdog deleted a series of comments in which I discussed the list of sources brought by User:Icewhiz (nearly all of which are significant and reliable). His edit note read "Do not interfere with another editor's comments." I had written a line-by-line analysis, signing each line to make clear which comments were mine. If this is improper, I apologize, but I so think it is useful to point out whan an editor is misrepresenting sources. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yep, as I explained on your talk page here. You remain free to restore them, not interleaved with mine. Instead you make drama? I guess that is less work. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I missed that. However, your explanation [40], in addition to being dismissive and insulting, is puzzling. The text as I left makes it perfectly plain which edits were yours and which comments mine. [41] Cutting to the chase, can you point me to the rule that forbids commenting on a list in this way?E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And what happens when I reply to you, and you to me? To answer your question, almost nothing is "forbidden" in WP but read the talk page of TPG where there is a huge, intense discussion about this. Nobody loves it. Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory's removed comments indicate that he thinks that being listed in a directory, or having a press release cloned in multiple outlets, or having its members or affiliates quoted as sources, contributes to an organization's notability. They do not. Please read WP:ORGDEPTH. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- for lack of reliable sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. I reviewed the sources in the article and presented here at the AfD, including the German ones. They are either passing metions, works by members of the group or highly partisan. Building an article on such sources is not appropriate and would result in an WP:ADVOCACY page.

Notability is not determined by the number of branches they have. I'm not convinced by the argument that "Any organisation with chapters at Stanford University (stanford.edu) (...) is, by definition, notable". Notability is determined by whether 3rd parties have covered the topic;

it's not inherited. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a poorly-sourced promotional article. It fails WP:ORGDEPTH - namely it has not "been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." The sources provided are either not independent or very trivial mentions. AusLondonder (talk) 09:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin There is currently significant community concern from several long-serving editors in good-standing about the conduct of E.M.Gregory at AfDs. This relates to misleading and dishonest use of sources to convey a false sense of notability. This conduct is being repeated by other editors above - posting raw search results and links to directory entries (yes, directory entries). Another editor has argued "Any organisation with chapters at Stanford University...is by definition, notable" an argument that is directly in contravention of WP:ORGSIG which says "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is" Please remember it is the policy-based consensus arguments that matter, not the loudest advovates who treat Wikipedia as a battleground for their pov-pushing. Quality vs quantity. AusLondonder (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus at WP:AN/I that EMG edits or his behavior is somehow problematic or disruptive--Shrike (talk) 09:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to engage in any further discussion about this here and assist you in diverting and disrupting this AfD. AusLondonder (talk) 09:51, 31 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 no consensus. Sandstein 12:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pocomail[edit]

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

Not notable and contains little if any encyclopedic content. Fails Wikipedia's General notability guideline. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 18:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 18:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm not seeing sufficient coverage in reliable sources to construct an article. Antrocent (♫♬) 21:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: created in 1999, still listed as a best email client in 2017. Not only does that demonstrate notability, but enduring notability. [42] Toddst1 (talk) 05:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is some coverage in published magazines:

Canter, Sheryl (September 19, 2000). "The PC Magazine Shareware Awards, E-mail, News readers, Chat, Poco, Version 2.02". PC Magazine. Vol. 19, no. 16. Ziff Davis. pp. 102, 104. ISSN 0888-8507. 2/3 page article
Brenesal, Barry (November 2004). "Poco Systems PocoMail 3.1". PC Today. Vol. 2, no. 11. Sandhills Publishing Company. p. 98. ISSN 1040-6484. Full page review

Online sources seem to be scarce, I found several mentions and one short pcmag.com review: [43] There was also an article on pcworld.com, but isn´t available anymore (no archived version found). Pavlor (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While these are not official policies they provide good points: WP:OLDAGE, WP:MASK, WP:COATRACK. This article might be somewhat old, but it is not notable. This article also attempts to mask the part of it not being notable by containing very trivial facts in some areas. It also attempts to use context from what it might provide as an email client to make it seem more notable. Many items have received passing mentions in various books, magazines, but this does not provide notability. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another two RS:

Glitman, Russell (February 17, 2004). "E-mail clients, PocoMail 3.03". PC Magazine. Vol. 23, no. 3. Ziff Davis. p. 71. ISSN 0888-8507. Half page review in article about E-mail clients
Steyer Phelps, Anne (November 2007). "Email Clients, PocoMail 4.5". SmartComputing. Vol. 18, no. 11. Sandhills Publishing Company. p. 22. ISSN 1093-4170. Half page review in article about E-mail clients Pavlor (talk) 06:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of reliable sources to estabilish notability. Pavlor (talk) 06:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More reliable sources are needed to fulfill notability.Tart (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 24 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kerim Tekin[edit]

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

Apparent fanpage: no sources, all OR (including track listings of red-linked albums, etc.); notability tagged since 2015. Quick search did not turn-up obvious RS, so submitting for community assessment. Agricola44 (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fan page on non-notable singer Academicoffee71 (talk) 03:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Not finding any claims of notability to pass GNG.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:00, 24 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. per WP:HEY, and keep open the possibility of a merger with Gautam Khanzada that can be discussed on the talk page. —SpacemanSpiff 07:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gautam Rajput[edit]

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

Proposing deletion as subject lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Steps were taken WP:BEFORE this nomination to locate said sources, but were not successful. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - just to save the time of those unfamiliar with the subject area, please note that sources from or before the British Raj era are not considered to be reliable, nor is the "states" series of The People of India (which plagiarises those sources) or the joshuaproject website. Similarly, there is a long-standing consensus that caste-affiliated websites, such as indianrajputs.com, are not reliable, mainly due to their POV-pushing nature. Obviously, open wikis such as jatland.com fail WP:RS also. This probably is not an exhaustive list of problematic sources but it's a start - Johnuniq did suggest at a recent AfD that I should create something, perhaps in userspace, for this purpose - consider this as a part of what will be that.

FWIW, I can find mentions of this community, so the issue is likely to be one of whether those mentions are (a) reliable and (b) more than would be considered a "passing mention". On that I am at present undecided. - Sitush (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep. I've expanded the thing slightly. While the expansion is indeed a series of passing mentions, I can also see numerous snippets of sources from the 1960s and later which, because they are snippets, I am not prepared to use. Doubtless, someone could get access to them. I have a strong feeling that this community converted to Islam during the Mughal period. - Sitush (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think Gautam Khanzada is the same community. That article is almost entirely sourced to Raj era gazetteers that have long been considered unreliable. - Sitush (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending further revision. I would be reluctant to delete an article on a community unless we had conclusive reasons that there were no sources that could establish notability. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails GNG. The content Sitush added fails WP:SIGCOV which says: ""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.". I question how anyone could think the citations mentioned pass this bar. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article on non-notable topic. Academicoffee71 (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been to a good library and checked the >100 snippet view results that show using Google Books? - Sitush (talk) 08:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sitush, with the caveats on questionable reliability of some sources they stated, I agree that there is likely enough to satisfy WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, etc. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the references in the article which in aggregate satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Here's one I added: Muzaffar Alam (1998). "Aspects of Agrarian Uprisings in North India in the Early Eighteenth Century". In Muzaffar Alam; Sanjay Subrahmanyam (eds.). The Mughal State 1526-1750. Oxford University Press. p. 461-463. ISBN 978-0195652253. which discusses the grants to the clan, the growing military strength in the region, the conversion of the chief to Islam after a failed plot and the founding of communities, markets and construction of improvements such as a canal by his sons and descendants. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:16, 27 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 Caroline Snedeker#Works. Sandstein 12:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Haring[edit]

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

Article fails WP:ARTIST given the only work by the individual that is listed is not well-known enough. Also the article is severely lacking any further information on Mary. A quick search does not reveal any further info online nor any other important works. Vasemmistolainen (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Caroline Snedeker#Works; she played C. Reginald Dalby to Snedeker's Revd W Awdry so it's by association with her that she would be best known. A search online is not going to give you the full picture, as her book illustrations are almost 100 years old. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of any sort of notability, even for a redirect. Yes, she was 100 years ago, but we need to see at least some sort of historical record that would suggest she meets GNG. — Amakuru (talk) 10:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Megalibrarygirl Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Caroline Snedeker#Works as per Ritchie333. I was able to turn up a tiny bit of info, including this news clipping, and a mention this here. If we redirect, it will discourage the re-creation of an article until if there such a time that there is more information published about her. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- I think it qualifies for deletion, but there is no harm in redirecting, and I trust Ritchie's research/target. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Elkorek. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 25 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. bd2412 T 10:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Alexander Elkorek[edit]

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

Article fails WP:ARTIST given the only work illustrated by the individual is not well-known enough. Also the article is severely lacking any further information on Alexander. A quick search does not reveal any further info online nor any important works illustrated by the artist. Vasemmistolainen (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any significant RS online. Cook's Kitchen (talk) 01:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- only source given is DeviantArt, which doesn't bode well. Further, illustrating a book cover by itself does not make an individual notable. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Haring. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 25 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.

[1] NAT HENTOFF (1 March 2005). "Columbia Still Unbecoming". The Village Voice. Retrieved 30 October 2017. Judith Jacobson is vice president and coordinator of the Columbia chapter of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East.

[2] BENJAMIN WEINTHAL (14 February 2011). "ADL LAUDS GERMAN SCHOLAR FOR STUDY ON ANTI-SEMITISM". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 30 October 2017. Küntzel is an external research associate at the Vidal Sassoon Centre for The Study of Anti- Semitism at the Hebrew University. He teaches political science at a technical college in Hamburg and co-founded the German chapter of Scholars For Peace in the Middle East.

[1]

[2]