Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 September	21 September >

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. Sort of WP:SOFTDELETE given that it's two delete and one keep case (without clear cut evidence) and one allow userfication; thus, if someone wants userfication they can ask on WP:REFUND. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Johnson-Hinds[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR. Has had a few bit roles and one recurring role. Meters (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Via Google you find more references, seems ok for WP:ACTORS because of his role roles in several television shows. TulongaN (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: TulongaN (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
- I have no problem withdrawing this if you can show that he has had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." I did not see multiple significant roles. Meters (talk) 06:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm concerned with a number of SPAs editing this article to add similarly overinflated claims of his roles. Bit parts and a few recurring roles are written up as major roles or even starring roles. As I said, if there is sufficient reliably sourced evidence of significant roles I have no problem withdrawing this nomination. I'm not seeing it, and the continued push to overinflate claims is not only not convincing me, it is making me think that this is a case of socking or meatpuppetry. Meters (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing NACTOR and GNG. He's had a few recurring roles, plus a part in the latest Robocop movie, but that's not enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Allow move to userspace if anyone wants to keep the article there. The subject may be getting close to notability, and if he clearly passes the threshold, the article can be moved back to the mainspace. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe )³  22:48, 20 September 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. But tag for maintenance, for promotionalism seems like Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shahabad Markanda[edit]

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

The article has been hijacked by Kansalmitul & others and become an unsourced collection of vanity claims. The nonsense has been interleaved with some good contributions but the overall effect is that there is no identifiable "good" version to revert to. Regrettably WP:TNT is required. Cabayi (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. AfD is not cleanup. Someone can rewrite it. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 22:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per Aguyintobooks someone needs to rewrite the article, but it passes WP:GEOLAND [1] [2]. I have added a few sources to the article. FITINDIA 03:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cities are notable. Antrocent (♫♬) 19:39, 25 September 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) 19:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ATAT Tech[edit]

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

Fails :WP:CORP and WP:SIGCOV .The company was founded in 2016 clearly upcoming a case of WP:TOOSOON as well .Lacks substantial coverage in reliable sources. Written by an apparently undeclared paid editor Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable, as there is not enough independent, reliable sources that support the material in the article. Also, the article was created by a paid editor, which indicates the possibility for abuse that we have not spotted. For these reasons, this article should be deleted. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 02:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the WP:VG/RS custom search engine, leading me to believe this company is not notable. Clear delete. --Izno (talk) 13:17, 25 September 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shangjing (china)[edit]

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

Promotional article created by a WP:SPA (with a WP:COI username) about a Chinese village, I question why the draft was accepted by User:Aguyintobooks when it has 0 reference? By the way China has ~624,000 villages and 99.9% aren't notable by any means. We barely have any articles for the roughly ~41,636 Chinese towns and townships (typically administering ~10+ villages each). Timmyshin (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. All populated places are presumed notable under WP:GEOLAND even if they have a population of only 3 people (by consensus is the minimum population required). All 624,000 villages in China and all 41,000 regions are inherently notable and are not candidates for deletion. I did check, and this village does exist, and is where the article says it is, so I have no issue with WP:V criteria. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 21:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per WP:GEOLAND Bobherry Talk Edits 01:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:PLACEDAB, this article should probably be located at Shangjing, Zhejiang. Vycl1994 (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least 6 Shangjing's in Zhejiang alone, there's a Shangjing Village (上京村) in Rui'an, a Shangjing Village (上京村) in Qingtian County, a Shangjing Village (上京村) in Zhuji, a Shangjing Village (上井村) in Xianju County, a Shangjing Village (上京村) in Jindong District, Jinhua, as well as this Shangjing Village (上境村) in Wucheng District, Jinhua. Since China has 30+ provinces, it's not unreasonable to estimate that there are 100+ Shangjing's in China. Creating an article for one and not the others (and not even listing all of them on the dab page) just because a certain WP:SPA comes from that village is a case of WP:Systemicbias, but who is going to create articles for all 624,000 villages? Not to mention we would also have to move thousands of articles on Chinese towns and townships already created for disambiguation reasons. Timmyshin (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If I understand WP:systemic bias correctly, the solution is to write articles about all the other villages for which reliable external sources exist, not to delete articles that are the odd one of its kind. Deryck C. 10:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't wrong but that's only in theory. In practice it's impossible to write articles for all 624,000 articles, or even half of them, therefore this WP:systemicbias will remain until the time we die (if WP still exists). Even creating dab pages for all of them requires nothing short of a Herculean effort considering how few editors work on these topics. Timmyshin (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. While WP:GEOLAND is a thing, it's hardly the only consideration here. The article is clearly promotional, not reliably sourced, and at an inappropriate title. Whether the solution is stubifying and moving or deleting and starting over elsewhere is unimportant, but the article should not stay as it is, where it is. ansh 666 07:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually for a Chinese village, this is extremely well made, unless we have already made a viable alternative, I don't think we should use TNT, I fully support a rename. @Timmyshin:, I think a new task-force at Wikiproject China would be needed to deal with this, its a huge project, as huge as doing the USA to begin with. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 09:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. I have moved it to a more appropriate title as ^ suggested. I have also removed the offending unsourced mentions to some international tourist venture. The remaining article text is mostly made up of listing the official designated heritage buildings in the village, my thoughts are that these buildings are individually notable as historic protected sites (there are requirements for sources to grant protection, etc, etc. WikiProject historic sites has a consensus on it) I am therefore reluctant to remove them since there is a systemic bias against cultural buildings in non-western cultures. (I still think it should be speedy kept) --Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 09:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND and all the keep comments above. This is indeed a real place (Shangjing near Tangxi, Jinhua, Zhejiang) attested by both Google Maps and Baidu Maps at the location indicated by the article. I searched for Chinese-language news sources and it appears that this village rose to fame this year because of its role in an international student exchange programme, and is therefore covered by a number of travel news sites: [3][4][5]. Deryck C. 10:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I usually vote on Indian villages. Sometimes though, there are articles for which I cannot find any references to verify the content. If I am able to find some basic information in census records (village name, area, population, literacy rate, schools), I advocate for keeping it. In this case, the article doesn't have English sources but there may be Chinese sources. If someone can find them and translate/verify, I will vote a keep. There are some nice images in the article and it seems whoever is writing it may have some personal knowledge of the village. So I don't want to delete this.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The village meets GNG as there are sources ([6]、[7]) that discuss the history of the village in detail. --Antigng (talk) 09:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. The subject has withdrawn the request, however there's clearly consensus here that Lidz is sufficiently public that requested deletion is not available for this biography, and further that the subject meets our inclusion guidelines regardless of the request to delete. Thus I'm recording the result as keep. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Lidz[edit]

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

Article subject requests deletion, see [8], and see talk page for more details. Based on the criteria at WP:LOWPROFILE and past unrelated discussions I'm inclined to endorse the request. Note that this article has been the recent target of an undisclosed paid editing ring. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Filer note - WP:NPF is also relevant to this request. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Person does meet GNG. Has had multiple articles (10) with his byline in The New York Times. Multiple articles in Sports Illustrated. Multiple books which have been reviewed in appropriate media, including the NYT. Multiple articles (over 80) in NYT mentioning him by name. Meets criteria as novelist and as columnist. And the "bad editors" are best handled separately, not by removing what appears, at this point, to be a reasonable BLP. If it were in any way disparaging, I would !vote "delete" in a flash, but that is not the article status as we discuss this. Collect (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable/important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrasapuentes (talk • contribs) 21:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, per the wishes of Mr. Lidz in accordance with WP:LOWPROFILE. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per BMK & DGG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but LOWPROFILE cannot possible apply to a person who's been a professional journalist for decades, has published books and memoirs (which put his personal life out for inspection), one of which has even been made into a film. Lidz' wishes in this situation are irrelevant, he's a public figure, and he's made himself a public figure by his own actions. He's more than welcome to comment on the talk page about things he wishes would be added or removed from the article or need to be changed in his view, but we cannot put ourselves into the position of being dictated to by clearly public figures about whether we should have an article about them or not. It makes a mockery of our editorial integrity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stricken, BMK and DGG are right. I shouldn't have made a knee-jerk comment out of frustration with the talk page situation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep By a look at the sources provided and the literature the person has written, including a book which was made into a Hollywood film, this person seems more than notable enough to have an article.--INDIAN REVERTER (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As a heads up, INDIAN REVERTER is a brand new account created about an hour ago with 19 edits, all of which are keep comments at AfDs. It's certainly unusual behavior for a new account. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A notable journalist and author who request for deletion is based on incorrect presumptions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:AUTHOR #4 with multiple reviews. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the reasons given above. He has a very public career.Based on the talk page discussion, I am inclined to think that the request for deletion (if it indeed comes from the subject) is a reaction to our writing the article in a way he does not like, in particular our not accepting the earlier versions' hyperbola and pr-orinted material about him. This is the sort of request we should never accommodate. If there is specific objections to the material included, we can of course deal with them, but I cannot imagine what they would be. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Particularly given there's been no OTRS confirmation, I fail to understand why we're even at AfD. If there's some actual argument as to why this individual might be non-notable, I would reconsider my !vote. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The definition of LowProfile is rather specific, usually applying to individuals who are famous for one event (not applicable here), the victims of ambush journalism or those who did not seek attention (not applicable here), or those who have avoided all media attention (not applicable, he has presumably done book signings and been part of a film, and is a member of the media). I think he meets the criteria of high-profile, but notable may be another issue. I'd side with keep . Barsportsunlimited (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- sorry Ivan, I don't support subject requests deletion without otrs verification. In regards to your comment - Note that this article has been the recent target of an undisclosed paid editing ring - this means nothing in regards to wp:notability to support deletion. In regards to Ivan's WP:NPF concern, he is not according to the links and article detail imo relatively unknown- Govindaharihari (talk) 06:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Collect, Beyond My Ken and DGG. There is no way that we should delete this article, because Lidz is clearly a public figure. Instead, we should expand and improve the article, and archive the talk page foolishness. The lack of OTRS verification is also an issue, but I would oppose deletion even if we were sure that Lidz really wants it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I requested this deletion in order to blank the scurrilous accusations and unsupported aspersions made by a couple of WP editors. I'm happy to report that those comments have since been expunged. But there's something deeply troubling about a deletion process that allows those very editors to vote on the outcome. One of them at least had the decency to apologize. The other has made a mockery of your editorial integrity. When a college professor sympathetic to me punches gaping holes in the editor's wild and reckless conclusions, the editor lashes out, belittles the professor and disparages my work. This isn't my idea of "neutrality" and, for the sake of the general public, I hope it's not WP's.FranzLidz (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you - and, as best I can, have tried to prevent some of the worst abuses on biographical articles. It is, indeed, an uphill struggle at times. You would be aghast at reading User:Collect/BLP where I quote the attitudes of some such "editors". Collect (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your support. As for the other self-righteous fulminations you cite -- ugh!FranzLidz (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, as far as I am aware, the account "Franz Lidz" has yet to verify their identity as the writer Franz Lidz with OTRS. Nor has the "journalism professor" confirmed their identity as such.

As for the claims made by the account Franz Lidz above -- which are much more accusatory and derogatory than anything said on the article talk page by Wikipedia editors -- they are, to put it mildly, gross misrepresentations of the discussion on the talk page and of the content of the article. No one on the talk page has accused Franz Lidz of doing anything improper, and the material removed from the article was done -- by a number of different editors -- for standard reasons of reducing promotionalism. It would have been better, if "Franz Lidz" is indeed Franz Lidz, for them to come to the talk page and make specific objections to specific material that has been removed, rather than barrelling into Wikipedia full of self-righteousness and loaded for bear, armed with erroneous information from the "journalism professor", and firing randomly at whatever targets present themselves.

In my view, this is not a genuine BLP issue, and the way to protect Wikipedia's editorial integrity is not to bend to the wishes of an article subject (if "Franz Lidz" is indeed Franz Lidz) who seems to prefer a hagiographic version of our article to one more encyclopedic in content. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've said all along I'd be happy to confirm my identity. Unfortunately, no one has tried to contact me or sent me instructions. I'd even talk to somebody like you! (See previous post.FranzLidz (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FranzLidz: We were told that your identity was being handled "off-line", but have heard nothing about that since. In any case, no one is going to come to you, since the onus is on you to show that you are who you claim to be. Go to WP:OTRS and follow the directions there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm looking into the OTRS issue - but I don't anticipate saying more until morning (Many people are unaware that we are not permitted to even acknowledge the existence of an OTRS email without permission from the contacting person) --S Philbrick (Talk) 00:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment I see no reason to await a response re OTRS. Is my opinion, and one I think is shared by many editors, that the wishes of the subject are relevant and close calls and I don't think this is a close call. In other words I agree with Cullens comment.--S Philbrick (Talk) 00:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Identify confirmation I can confirm that OTRS is in receipt of an email from Franz Lidz and I have confirmed his identity.--S Philbrick (Talk) 00:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sphilbrick, that's very good to know. However, it does not change my !vote in any way, since there's no question of Lidz' notability and that he is a public figure. As I have said, Lidz (now that we know it's actually him), is welcome to make productive suggestions on the talk page as to changes they believe should be made to the article, and editors will evaluate those. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has attained significant coverage. Article was previously in poor shape but has been improved in recent days. As for the talk page foolishness, it should be archived/deleted as appropriate. Neutrality^talk 01:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Filer note - I'm about to close this, Mr. Lidz has withdrawn the request. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:44, 22 September 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) 19:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

V. K. Adarsh[edit]

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

The article V. K. Adarsh is not a notable person. Most links are also not about the person (those are of some blogging website URLs),and cannot even find any articles related to person on Newspapers, which may or may not be notable. There is nothing about this person which makes him notable. 137.97.11.103 (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC) -- Nomination on behalf of an anonymous user [9]. – Uanfala 19:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:BIO written as WP:PROMO and does not have WP:CS--EC Racing (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 21:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 21:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not important/notable! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrasapuentes (talk • contribs) 21:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a "social media evangelist" isn't a notable reason.Willard84 (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He's received the state government's Science Journalism Award. Is this significant? – Uanfala 10:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not a significant award.2405:204:D485:1080:24F9:C7B7:26B7:292D (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable person, fails WP:BIO and URLs pointed to his blog and shopping cart websites. 122.174.250.10 (talk) 14:26, 27 September 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.

There's something distinctly disconcerting in this sudden appearance of several IPs voting for the deletion of an obscure article. – Uanfala 20:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Although there are more commenters recommending keeping this article, I don't find much policy-based strength in the arguments. With the addition of the potentially inappropriate canvassing for keeping the article, the discussion may be artificially skewed to that point of view. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Frick[edit]

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

Grace Frick appears to be known solely for her association with Marguerite Yourcenar. WP:INHERITED applies here. All three references are about Yourcenar, not Frick who is mentioned only in context of the relationship with her. I cannot find sufficient evidence that Frick meets WP:PROF to establish notability on her own. A redirect to the article on Yourcenar may be a suitable alternative to deletion. Deli nk (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrasapuentes (talk • contribs) 21:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Redirect to Marguerite Yourcenar. No independent notability. No pass of WP:Prof or WP:GNG, WP:NOTINHERITED.Xxanthippe (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Frick was the first dean Hartford College for Women and it's remembered for being one of the reason the college survived during the World War II times. Other than that she taught in the more important women colleges in the United States and was the translator of Yourcenar's books in English. I improved the article.

The entirety WP:PROF is a trifle unnecessary :)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. From the University of Hartford Archives Blog: "Frick was faced with the impact of World War II which eventually reinforced the need for women’s education. Women stepped into careers formerly open primarily to men and took over family businesses as men departed for service in the armed forces. Although enrollment at the college dropped during the war, the trustees felt that they needed to keep the college afloat for the duration. They predicted that the next generations of women would increasingly expect education of a high caliber after learning during the war that they could handle professions and trades formerly viewed as masculine."

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the IEEE).[2]

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. From the University of Hartford Archives Blog: "The first two administrators of the college had been exceptional scholars but had now moved on to careers focusing on teaching in the case of Randall and research and translation in the case of Frick. Although these first two deans had served very briefly, the administrator who followed Grace Frick would be the woman who most fully defined Hartford College for Women."

5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon). From the University of Hartford Archives Blog: Grace Frick became the second dean of Hartford Junior College in 1940. She taught English at HJC in addition to fulfilling her administrative duties. She had taught previously at Stephens Junior College for Women at Columbia, Mo., and at Barnard College of Colombia University before coming to HJC. Frick initially left Hartford College for Women for a teaching position at Connecticut College for Women in New London, Conn. in 1943."

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. From the University of Hartford Archives Blog: "Grace Frick became the second dean of Hartford Junior College in 1940."

7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. From the University of Hartford Archives Blog: "The first two administrators of the college had been exceptional scholars but had now moved on to careers focusing on teaching in the case of Randall and research and translation in the case of Frick. Although these first two deans had served very briefly, the administrator who followed Grace Frick would be the woman who most fully defined Hartford College for Women."

8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC. From In Translation: Translators on Their Work and What It Means: "She is also rembered for being the translator of "Memoirs of Hadrian", "Coup de Grace" and "The Abess". Until Frick's death, Yourcenar allowed only her to translate her books." Elisa.rolle (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: academic dean at precursor of Hartford College for Women suffices for notability; I've added it to lead for clarity. PamD 21:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Academic dean' does nor satisfy any of the WP:Prof criteria. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Point 6 of WP:Prof: The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisa.rolle (talk • contribs)

Hartford College for Women, like most colleges, does not qualify as a major academic institution, so WP:Prof#C6 is not passed. However, work as a sometime translator of the awesome Marguerite Yourcenar, particularly of The Memoirs of Hadrian, does confer some notability, and I have altered my vote according to WP:Author, among which I include translators, as translators usually get a raw deal on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Keep The current references in the article show that she passes the notablity test. Pichpich (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

which references? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

^[1]

^[2]

^[3]

^[4]

^[5]

^[6]

^[7]

^[8]

References

^ Edmund White (September 14, 1997). "The Celebration of Passion". The New York Times. Retrieved July 25, 2017.
^ "BECOMING THE EMPEROR How Marguerite Yourcenar reinvented the past". The New Yorker. February 14, 2005. Retrieved July 25, 2017.
^ Bleier, Magda Palacci (1980). "After 300 Years, a Woman Writer (from Maine, 'Mon Dieu') Joins 'The Immortals' of France". People. Retrieved 21 September 2017.
^ "Early Hartford College for Women History". University of Hartford Archives: Hartford College for Women and the WelFund. Retrieved 21 September 2017.
^ Allen, Esther; Bernofsky, Susan (2013). In Translation: Translators on Their Work and What It Means. Columbia University Press. p. 77. Retrieved 21 September 2017.
^ "Marguerite Yourcenar". Brookhaven National Laboratory. Retrieved 8 June 2017.
^ "Grace Frick Dies; Was College Dean - 25 Nov 1979, Sun • Page 24". Hartford Courant: 24. 1979. Retrieved 21 September 2017.
^ Litoff, Judy Barrett; McDonnell, Judith (1994). European Immigrant Women in the United States: A Biographical Dictionary. Taylor & Francis. p. 320. Retrieved 21 September 2017.

These sources are mostly about Marguerite Yourcenar and justify a redirect rather than a delete. The only source directly about Frick is a routine local obituary. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Other than the obituary that is not routine being in a major newspaper (The Hartford Courant is the largest daily newspaper in the U.S. state of Connecticut), there is the Hartford College Blog: "Second Dean, Grace Frick 1940-43. A scholar of French language and literature, Grace Frick became the second dean of Hartford Junior College in 1940. She taught English at HJC in addition to fulfilling her administrative duties. A native of Kansas City, Mo., she was a 1925 graduate of Wellesley College. She received an master's from Wellesley two years later. Frick completed additional academic work at both Yale and the University of Kansas. She had taught previously at Stephens Junior College for Women at Columbia, Mo., and at Barnard College of Colombia University before coming to HJC. Frick was faced with the impact of World War II which eventually reinforced the need for women’s education. Women stepped into careers formerly open primarily to men and took over family businesses as men departed for service in the armed forces. Although enrollment at the college dropped during the war, the trustees felt that they needed to keep the college afloat for the duration. They predicted that the next generations of women would increasingly expect education of a high caliber after learning during the war that they could handle professions and trades formerly viewed as masculine. Today Grace Frick is best known because of her lifelong relationship with Belgian writer Marguerite Yourcenar. The two first met in 1937 in Paris. Later, while Frick was taking courses at Yale in New Haven, Conn., Yourcenar came to the United States to avoid the disruptions in Europe caused by the war. The two began to share an apartment in 1939 while Frick was teaching at Barnard. Yourcenar later joined Frick in Hartford. Unlike Dean Randall, Grace Frick did not live on campus. She and Yourcenar lived together in an apartment building at 549 Prospect Ave. in West Hartford and kept the apartment until April 1951. Yourcenar taught at Hartford Junior College beginning in1941, teaching French literature and art history for free. The two women were active in the intellectual and artistic circles in Hartford during their years of residence. Youcenar also commuted to Bronxville, N. Y. during this period to teach at Sarah Lawrence College. Frick initially left Hartford College for Women for a teaching position at Connecticut College for Women in New London, Conn. in 1943. Frick became Yourcenar’s translator and continued in that role until her own death. The two finally settled in 1950 at Mount Desert Island in Maine. Grace Frick died in 1979. The first two administrators of the college had been exceptional scholars but had now moved on to careers focusing on teaching in the case of Randall and research and translation in the case of Frick. Although these first two deans had served very briefly, the administrator who followed Grace Frick would be the woman who most fully defined Hartford College for Women."

Keep There is no requirement that information about Frick must be separate from Yourcenar or anyone else..."does not need to be the main topic of the source material". There is also no requirement that any biography meet alternative PROF standards, merely GNG. However, as is pointed out above, she meets criteria #6. There are multiple books which discuss the two women: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Sufficient reliable sources over time to provide independent verification of subject's biography without completing original research. Clearly meets GNG. SusunW (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources mentioned clearly show she was notable as an educator. Simply because she translated Yourcenar does not deprive her of notability, quite the contrary.--Ipigott (talk) 10:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Leading an institution of higher education is a notable accomplishment, and her other academic/literary work contributes to her general notability. The article is also sourced well and there's obviously no issue of self-promotion. -- Penny Richards (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ludicrous nomination. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination was not ludicrous. The case is borderline and fails WP:Prof, probably fails WP:GNG but possibly might scrape through a suitable interpreted WP:Author as I have discussed above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Merge or redirect. Even with everything written above, I'm having a hard time seeing how notability is established independent of Marguerite Yourcenar. Claims such as "Leading an institution of higher education", don't even seem to be true. If you have to resort to distortion to make the case, I don't think there is a strong case to make. The role of dean (an administrator of a subunit of an organization) at Hartford Junior College does not appear to be significant. Edgeweyes (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have the wrong college. She led the Hartford College for Women. And it was a leading institution: "HCW was one of the first colleges in the country to offer a major in Women's Studies. The program was cited as one of the most progressive programs in the field by the New England Women's Studies Association due to its special emphasis on the relationship between gender, race, and class." Point 6 of WP:PROF is proven. Elisa.rolle (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two-year colleges are never major institutions, which require, at least, a significant international research presence. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Not sure where there is the rule that "Two-year colleges are never major institutions", anyway, "Hartford College for Women (HCW) played an important part in the history of higher education for women in the US and was one of the finest providers of single sex education in its day. The college began as "Mt. Holyoke in Hartford" to provide the first two years of an academically challenging curriculum to young women who could not afford to attend a four year residential college." more at the website if you want to read: [16] Elisa.rolle (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That issue is best discussed on the talk pages of WP:Prof. Instead of barrel-scraping you might do better to address the one area of the BIO that is most likely to lead to notability-the translations of the illustrious author Marguerite Yourcenar. These receive a minimum of attention in the article, but will be the one thing Frick is remembered for. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

The whole reason this article was brought to AfD is because she was associated with Yourcenar, someone more notable than herself, and that always causes our editors to think that less-notable means not-notable. It's a regular problem here with somewhat-famous women who marry famous men, and it's the same issue this time regardless of the fact that her partner was also a woman. So you are asking the article to emphasize the parts that prompted the deletion, rather than the parts that make her independently notable (assuming she is). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point I see as being important is that Frick was not just the partner of a more famous woman (which would be non-notable according to WP:Not inherited), but acted creatively as the successful translator of an important writer. It is irrelevant whether the person whose books she translated was her partner or not. I think the reason that the article was taken to AfD was that the article was not clearly enough written to emphasize this crucial point but buried it under a bog of irrelevancies about the worthy but routine teaching appointments she held. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I think everyone is forgetting what I wrote in the first comment. This article is not mine but when I saw it was in AfD I improved the article. Before my improvements the whole article consisted of "Grace Frick (12 January 1903 – 18 November 1979) was an American English professor, translator, and researcher, most commonly for French author Marguerite Yourcenar, her lifelong partner. Grace Frick was born in Kansas. Frick worked on a dissertation at Yale University, starting in 1937, the same year she met Yourcenar." Now the article is more than suitable to prove her notability, and if someone wants to improve it more, they are more than welcome. Elisa.rolle (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the stub was better before you worked on it and obfuscated the main reason for notability. However, the article has been improved since then and is now in a tolerable state. After the article was nominated for AfD you sought help at the WiR talk page[17], ignoring the recommendation at WP:Canvassing which advises Note: It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made. As expected, pile-on Keeps emerged rapidly. Some were content-free, some seemed absent of logical argument, some were nothing more than WP:ILIKEIT, some argued, contrary to established WP:Prof policy, that all Deans of Junior Colleges are automatically notable. None of them dealt with the central issue for the notability of the biography, the work done as a translator. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

If moving up a sentence adding a "most" and inverting the lead [18] is making it better, I'm more than fine with it. Elisa.rolle (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Alliance for Surgery and Anesthesia Presence (ASAP)[edit]

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

Borderline notability Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is sourced well. Strongest argument for deletion is "borderline", which doesn't hold up. People making delete requests on grounds of notability should be sure it should be deleted, the onus is on them to provide evidence, not to simply put an article up for deletion on a whim.Egaoblai (talk) 05:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (before I decide) -- As far as I am concerned, notability is determined by the difference the group has made, not where they meet, or who is on the membership roster. Notability is not inherited. That's why WP generally shuns mission statements. Don't tell me what you intend to do; show me what you've done. The papers and research ought to be first, if it is to stay Rhadow (talk) 10:09, 23 September 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 Erlang (unit). (non-admin closure) f e minist 12:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

High-loss calculation[edit]

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

Deprodded per WP:NODEADLINES, but if an article goes EIGHT YEARS without a single edit, I think it at least needs attention. This seems to be nothing more than a mere dicdef, and I was unable to find any sources to build it up. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly more than a dicdef. I have added to WP:TELECOM and introduced additional incoming links. Threat of deletion should not be used as a means to get improvements made to articles. ~Kvng (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello Kvng -- If threat of deletion is not enough, then adding a tag or category, or leaving a tag in place, is unlikely to help this list, some members of which go back to 2006:
Needs references: 205,958
Needs references (BLP): 2,695
Needs more references: 314,990
Needs more references (BLP): 49,779
Needs in-text citations: 88,878
Needs reliable references: 63,898
Has unsourced quotes: 1,138
Has unsourced statements: 325,912

We need to deal with these items one-by-one, as TenPoundHammer has done. The alternative is to postulate that all of them have a valid reference somewhere on the web, and delete all million reference tags. Rhadow (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 5 million articles on WP so your numbers are not so shocking in that context. These fix-it-now-or-delete-it ultimatums are simply not in line with deletion policy. If you disagree, we can continue this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. ~Kvng (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per WP:DEL7 and WP:DEL14 (in particular as a violation of WP:NOT#OR). I preformed a search on regular Google, Google Scholar, and a few other academic databases. I see nothing that is verifiable in this entry, meaning that it fails our most core content policy, WP:V, which if failed after an exhaustive search is reason for deletion. The fact that this also appears to be pure original research also makes it eligible for deletion as a violation of WP:NOT. These are both valid reasons for deletion under deletion policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reference to a reputable offline source (unfortunately one not available on Google Books but frequently referenced in other books) so yours is not a strong argument. Although I have not found any suitable sources to add, my online research indicates this is not a hoax or neologism or any such. How about if I merge this article into Erlang (unit)? It is directly related and I believe to would be helpful for readers there to know that the Erlang formulas have limitations. ~Kvng (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It actually is a strong argument since its been sitting unreferenced for years and no one has managed to bring forth sources to meet WP:V (even after credible searches, which I did perform). This is not a question of notability, but a question of verifiability, which is also a valid deletion rationale (DEL7). There is nothing to merge because all of the content is unsourced so would be inappropriate in any article. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Material that has been challenged or expected to be challenged needs to be cited. So do you expect this to be challenged or are you challenging everything that is in this article? If it were not in a stand-alone article (i.e. merged into Erlang (unit)), would you be insisting that it be removed from there immediately or would {{cn}} tagging it be sufficient? ~Kvng (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable from WP:V. No one has shown that any of the material currently in the article is verifiable, even in offline sources. This isn't about there being one reference to one potential offline source: we have no idea what is in it, and no one claims to. It might contradict everything in this article for all we know. Nothing in this article has been verified, which also makes it pure OR. Both of those are valid deletion reasons. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are inappropriately mixing verifiable with verified. We don't require material in the encyclopedia to be verified we just require some level of assurance that it is verifiable. Our level of assurance has to be high - approaching or meeting verified - for controversial information such as WP:BPL. Some uncontroversial, widely known information does not require citations because it can be verified by a consensus of editors. For more obscure information such as we're dealing with here, verifiability is adequately satisfied with an off-line reference that someone can go to a library and sort out. If this doesn't cut it for you for this topic, that's fine, we can disagree. ~Kvng (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I agree with Kvng that a low-profile offline ref would be sufficient to warrant inclusion in a parent article (i.e. a merge). But where is that ref? The only ref I see in the article or its history is a dead link to [19] with the term "personal communication" (which does not ring like a published source). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect @Tigraan and Kvng:, looking over this again, I would be fine with a redirect here, no merge, but allowing the content to be kept in the history for a potential merge if the online source can actually be produced. There's nothing harmful in the page history, so a redirect would follow both WP:PRESERVE and WP:V. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I haven't had a chance to re-review and answer questions about this. It looks like I may have gotten my wires crossed with another AfD. I am comfortable with a redirect for now and would salvage and merge anything useful as my time allows. ~Kvng (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirec and possibly merge to Erlang (unit), seems a minor subtopic of that topic area. Sandstein 10:29, 28 September 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. One of the delete !votes concerning "likes on facebook" relative to 'seeming notability' is not guideline- or policy-based. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saara Lamberg[edit]

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

fails WP:NACTOR. almost all her acting roles are short appearances or in non notable productions. everything she has produced is "short" and non notable. also no articles really link to her except the Underbelly movie which she appeared in for a few minutes. It's a very low bar if we accept minor actors like this into WP. LibStar (talk) 06:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The same false argument is used here as in the previous discussion, where it has allready been proven not to be true.--Snaevar (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem that notable.. only 125 likes on facebook Abrasapuentes (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails actor notabilty.122.171.237.5 (talk) 05:09, 27 September 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 10:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History of alternate reality games[edit]

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

An entirely-unnecessary sub-page of Alternate reality game, no content worth merging. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some amount of original research here, but also a lot of good well sourced content. This article is long enough to avoid a merger. Antrocent (♫♬) 17:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Even if the OR is removed, the page would likely still exist due to WP: Split: The main page itself is 84k in size. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:32, 20 September 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. WP:OSE is not a very good stand-alone argument. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 17:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brunei at the 2013 Southeast Asian Games[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:ORGIN, WP:BRANCH, and GNG. Not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – not substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area. This information is already covered in "2013 Southeast Asian Games" which is probably notable. Previous PROD [20] ----Steve Quinn (talk) 04:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep everything I've seen suggests that performances of countries at multi-country international games events are inherently notable. CJK09 (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I say keep because this is a notable event and your basically saying that lets delete all of the other regional pages as it "doesn't follow that rule". Does it need improving, yes. Is it worth deleting it, no. Matt294069 is coming 05:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:31, 20 September 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 Boldly moving to draft. There is no clear consensus to keep, but there is also a lack of the sourcing and substance to maintain this as an article in mainspace. It will remain in draft space until it is improved and reviewed through the usual process. If it is not further improved, it will eventually be deleted. bd2412 T 01:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarku Japan[edit]

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

I have nominated this article for deletion due to the article's lack of reliable third-party citations after a decade of existance per WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS and unable to find anything about the company via Google. -- 68.50.32.85 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion page created on behalf of IP 68.50.32.85. The rationale for deletion may also be found on the article talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This restaurant chain is big enough for an article, but the present article is terrible. Zero^talk 06:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep. Here is a Washington Post article about the chain: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/sarku-japan-seeks-to-move-from-food-courts-to-standalone-franchises/2012/04/20/gIQAiJ4UaT_story.html?sw_bypass=true&utm_term=.1fa1dab2c5a1 - though I would feel better if I could find a second. There are a number of individual local restaurant reviews that might count. --GRuban (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per Wahington Post article and reviews Atlantic306 (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One would expect a company of its size would have more written about it in contemporary newspaper articles. Are there any newspaper articles that describes who had started the Canada-based chain (which strangely does not have any restaurants in Canada itself)? Why is the company based in Canada? Local restaurant reviews appear to be very difficult to locate that would satisfy WP:VERIFY (Yelp reviews does not satisfy WP:VERIFY); the few that I have seen so far is just an extension of the newspaper's advertising dept. due to the lack of non-positive reviews from those same writers. The current article is awful because it is partially based on company material with the rest of the material being unsubstantiated claims. As currently written, the article fails WP:NOTE -- 68.50.32.85 (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two local restaurant reviews: New York Newsday Fredericksburg (Virginia) Free Lance–Star It's not going to be a featured article, but it's going to be a passable stub. --GRuban (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A few more: Times Ledger The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. And here is the second real story on the chain I was looking for: Nation's Restaurant News. It's a full keep. --GRuban (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Compared to a few days ago, the subject of the article now has the potential of becoming a passable stub as long as an editor is willing to be WP:BOLD and fix this terrible article without the article falling into the WP:PROMO trap which recently AfDed PizzaRev. (I have to give GRuban special thanks for spending the time to dig out these articles.) The New York Newsday article is significant because it is written by an identified writer for a significant publication who also included the minor problems with her meal during her visit. On the other hand, the Times Ledger seems very promotional and may not be able to satisfy WP:NOTE by itself. Depending on how it is used, the 'Nation's Restaurant News article could fail per Wikipedia:CORP. The The Atlanta Journal-Constitution article is very significant because it can point an editor to additional material about a single franchise in Atlanta, such as these AJC and Atlanta Business Chronicle articles. -- 68.50.32.85 (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. The reference posted by GRuban fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND as it is entirely based on an interview with the founder, with no independent opinion/analysis, therefore also fails as an intellectually independent references and is a PRIMARY source. The second "news" story fails since it is based on a company announcement. The restaurant reviews posted provide no in-depth information on the topic. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The situation is even worst than what HighKing had depicted since the interview in question was with an insignificant franchise owner and not with a non-existent "founder" since the business appears to be the corporate creation of a Canada-based company. No one seems to be able to locate a single newspaper articles that describes the creation of the company and/or brand that was not based on a press release. The current article appears to be exclusively composed of material from a single corporate source. -- 68.50.32.85 (talk) 21:32, 23 September 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. Black Kite (talk) 09:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pulsatile flow generator[edit]

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

The scope of the article should be general, but the content is entirely focused on the properties of one such pulsatile flow generator
The tone is far from being neutral (likely written with conflict of interest)
The only two references provided are unlikely to describe the topic in a neutral light ("pilot study", "Novel Concept") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariadacapo (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:TNT As the nom says, this is a general class of devices (the feds say so), and what we have here is an article hawking one particular design. I'm not even sure the thing is notable on its own, but at any rate the current article is hopelessly promotional. Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without prejudice - I agree with all the problems identified here but it is possible to improve things. Usually we add some tags and wait to see what happens before rushing to delete. I have added some tags based on the discussion here. There are not yet any incoming links so this is off on a corner on its own and won't likely embarrass anyone while it is improved. ~Kvng (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, inappropriate and promotional tone, making the content and references suspect. Sandstein 10:21, 28 September 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowikis[edit]

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

The website is long-defunct; no sign that it ever obtained general notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. The previous AFDs' claims to keep were "it's notable because of the lawsuit", but Wikipedia is not news. stranger195 (talk • contribs • guest book) 12:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this article has been kept 5 times previously because it received a lot of coverage in its day and is part of Internet history (for example, was the subject of a three part case study on ZDNet [21]). Antrocent (♫♬) 03:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:29, 20 September 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 Moon Tycoon. Merge can be carried out from article history. ansh 666 09:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Sea Tycoon[edit]

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

The subject of the article seems to be non notable - the article itself indicates the video game received no reviews, I couldn't find anything relevant about it with a Google Search. The external links which could be used for reference point to a primary source (the game's page), a dead link, and to a wiki-like website about games which, given its crowdsourced nature cannot be used as a ref. Having no references and being apparently not notable, I'm nominating it for deletion. Saturnalia0 (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - WP:ASSERTN is not the way to judge notability. Mobygames lists 4 reliable reviews and 3 of which are still up on the internet. [22]. It seems like it barely squeaks by notability, but it still seems notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The game is described as being similar to the developer's earlier title, Moon Tycoon. It seems to be sort of a spiritual sequel if not part of the same series. I first thought that perhaps Deep Sea Tycoon could have its own section in that article. However that title seems to have even less coverage. Clearly the two should be combined in some way, though. Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moon Tycoon is indeed notable enough for its own article, per MobyGames. [23] Plenty of reviews here to be inserted. A redirect to Moon Tycoon wouldn't be out of the question._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would a section at Moon Tycoon then suffice? Deep Sea Tycoon doesn't have that much text to begin with. We can keep the infobox, place it next to the text in the section there. Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just say I wouldn't be prejudiced against a redirect. If you changed your vote to redirect as well, as per your proposal, then that would be the consensus, unless someone else weighs in differently._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Moon Tycoon, the first part of the series. Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is some combination of merge and redirect, per Magoo and Zxcvbnm and WP:ATD. --Izno (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:29, 20 September 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) 19:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Have 3 Eggs[edit]

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

Aside from IMDB and a number of similar directory sites there don't seem to be any sources that mention this. I see nothing to indicate that this film meets GNG or any of the subject specific notability criteria at WP:NFO. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 05:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article does not even mention anything about this film's plot. Vorbee (talk) 08:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This just seems a half good version of 'I have 6 eggs'... Not seeing WP:GNG or WP:NFILM notability. after a quick google search. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 13:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it was even a quarter as good as The Dirty Dozen, It might have something going for it. :) — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 00:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:29, 20 September 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. Clearly there is a verify divisive view over to whether or not this person is notable, so it's best to close this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Biscoe[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Local councillor. Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Personage is main subject in multiple independent news reports over 25+ year period. Personage is also active in groups/organisations/charities/council(s) (yes two councils) which have attracted more independent news coverage. this is not counting ample primary sources. NB. WP:OFFLINE may apply to some older sources. see article talk page. A Guy into Books (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject appears to be one of 123 on the Cornwall Council, and most of these other councillors will also have similar, routine political coverage of their opinions and positions in reliable new reports. WP:POLITICIAN exists because not all elected officials are notable for simply doing their jobs, but I'll wait to see if anyone posts a "claim to fame" that rises above this. -Location (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NPOL. Local political figure with the usual amount of routine coverage. Nothing exceptional or in-depth to demonstrate notability. The sources discussed on the article talkpage are primary sources such as his profile on the Cornwall Council website, his own website or sources such as local blogs - not independent, reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Posting another comment to say that ITV and The Guardian are considered national independent reliable sources. [[24]] and [[25]] also please note http://www.cornwalllive.com/ is not a 'local blog', but a regional news outlet. total ignorance in the article of his music career should probably be dealt with also since several books cover him on this topic. A Guy into Books (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ITV and Guardian articles are about a bridge, his opinion as a local councillor is quoted within them. That does not add up to notability. Boleyn (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

note there is a KW article for this person also. https://kw.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_Biscoe.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguyintobooks (talk • contribs) 12:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a local councilor clearly fails the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bard of Cornish Gorsedh, this indicates he and his work have been recognised as significant by a major cultural organisation in his area of work. DuncanHill (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the article to reflect this, it seems that his primary career was as a Bard, and that he only went into politics later. A Guy into Books (talk) 12:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the article sees significant improvement before close. Nothing here constitutes an automatic presumption of notability just because he exists, if the sourcing present in the article isn't sufficient to get him over WP:GNG — and while it's true that an article can be deemed to pass GNG if adequate sources exist even if the article isn't up to scratch yet, it's not enough to just say that adequate sources exist: one has to show hard evidence that adequate sources exist, such as the actual hard results of an actual search. And even if this does get deleted, that doesn't constitute a permanent ban on his ever being allowed to have an article — if somebody can write and source something better than this, they are allowed to try again. But we can't keep an entirely primary sourced version just because somebody asserts that stronger sources exist somewhere. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article was rewritten at this point

This article has now been considerably improved, with new references.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguyintobooks (talk • contribs) 11:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it really hasn't been improved. I see far too many references which are to primary sources, Blogspot blogs and/or glancing namechecks of his existence in media coverage of things that aren't him, and not even close to enough that are to reliable source coverage that has him as its subject. Bearcat (talk) 07:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, there are at least three WP:RS sources about him, which is enough for WP:GNG. Most the other comment here refer to WP:NPOL which i can't see being relevant here. A Guy into Books (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, three sources aren't enough for GNG if you're shooting for "notable because media coverage of him exists" rather than "notable because he passes a subject-specific inclusion criterion". If three sources were all it took to pass GNG, we'd have to start keeping articles about presidents of church bake sale committees, teenagers who tried out for their high school football team six months after having a toe amputated, and the woman a mile down the road from my parents who found a pig in her yard one day. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three sources will definitively pass GNG in most discussions I have come across, I think its fairly clear NPOL is not the main guideline here. Also we have articles about a l l o f t h o s e t h i n g s. (ok not really, but you get the point). A Guy into Books (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only way three sources can be enough to pass GNG by themselves is if they're supporting passage of a must-include criterion like being an MP or winning an Oscar. If you're going for "notable just because media coverage exists", then no, three sources aren't enough to get there. Three sources quite regularly do exist for lots of people or things that still don't qualify for a Wikipedia article, such as the examples I gave in the preceding comment — hell, three sources exist about me — so three sources aren't enough for GNG if they're not verifying passage of any SNGs. And I was talking about high school athletes, not professional ones, and I meant the woman, not the pig — so your examples don't contradict my point at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lmao you checked the links ok can you please explain to me what it takes for a living person to pass GNG. because I have no clue what your standard of proof is, mine is just 3 RS/V/O sources. Consider subject is Published author of (11?) books, bard of the Gorsedh, musician, local councillor, unitary authority councillor, and portfolio holder (boss) of transport in cornwall, responsible for 50m a year budget, trustee on the board of the Royal Cornwall museum, trustee of 3 charities, chairman of 2 charity boards, also is a representative of the Cornish Constitutional Convention. Is considered locally to be a primary figure in the Cornish Idenity debate and is one of the few people who actually speak cornish. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My standard is that the person either (a) has a strong claim to passing a subject-specific inclusion standard, or (b) can show that he got quite a lot more reliable source coverage (i.e. quite a bit more than just two, three or four pieces of it) than the woman a mile down the road from my parents got for finding the pig in her yard. Neither of which have been shown as true here yet. And most of what you asked me to consider isn't notability claims at all: local authority councillor is not a notability claim; being trustee or chairman of a charity board is not a notability claim; and on and so forth — those are all things that hundreds of thousands of people in the world, probably into the millions if you consider people who used to hold those roles but don't still because they're retired or dead, so they aren't notability freebies in the absence of quite a lot more reliable source coverage than the woman with the pig got. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Published bards, recognised by their peers, should be seen as Notable. The council work belongs here, but it's an irrelevance for notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Further to Bearcat's comments. I have decided that the correct subject-specific inclusion standard this personage is notable under is WP:COMPOSER. which is due to his bardic work and subsequent recognition by the Gorsedh. A Guy into Books (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now that A Guy into Books has aimed the article towards Biscoe's career as a Bard, this now does pass WP:COMPOSER. Zangar (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting for further discussion, particularly with regards to whether the new sources rise above non routine coverage
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have overhauled the sources and added some new ones related to his bardic career. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 11:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have done a lot of good work on the article, but I do not see the level of coverage to meet WP:COMPOSER or WP:GNG. There are many sources on this - probably too many - but many are not reliable sources, or are primary sources. Being a bard does not make you inherently notable. You commenting on this page so many times can also misleadingly read like different people commenting, and you cannot have multiple keep votes - I have struck your second vote. Please only continue to comment here if you have something new to say. Boleyn (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose since you nominated this for deletion that would be your opinion, you do have a record to maintain and all. My point is that this article is well sourced, with at least one secondary sources to back up each use of a primary source, and by my count, 5 good sources that show WP:GNG, Wikipedia should rightfully be stringent in keeping cruft out, but this undoubtedly meets all the relevant guidelines, especially WP:GNG. As far as my comments are concerned, this was closed as keep and then mysteriously reopened, obviously I am going to comment. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 19:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you citing WP:COMPOSER and ignoring WP:AUTHOR? He's an invited member of the Cornish Gorsedd. For a bard, that is how you get recognised as a bard. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He could probably meet WP:AUTHOR, he has published a lot of books, some of which are listed in the article already, I just don't know the precedent for bards, they are a sort of author/poet/musician combo which is hard to place. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 20:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have had a major disagreement with Boleyn elsewhere over this Afd. However during that I noticed that notwithstanding the comments made by others here, this person actually does meet WP:NPOL #1. as he held a 'provincewide office' as Portfolio Holder for Transport in Cornwall. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 22:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall is a county, not a province or state. NPOL #1 does not include offices held at the county level of government, and England's lack of any level of government between the counties and Westminster does not reify the counties into states or provinces for the purposes of NPOL #1 — whether there are provinces/states or not, county offices are still evaluated under NPOL #2 and only NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, everywhere outside London is 'the provinces' by British definition. And with the exception of Northern Ireland, which is electively a single province (often known as 'The province'), every administrative section of the UK is its own province. I realise you are probably American (actually I just checked, you are Canadian, but same difference for this comparison), where counties are pretty insignificant, but here in the UK that is not the case, what you consider as a county, we call a parish, what you call a state, we call a county. As a point of fact province is the same as county when filling out addresses and internet forms. people sending me mail from Spain for example will fill in the province as Devon, this is standard correct procedure. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 19:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason a county is "equivalent" to a state or province in filling out a mailing address is because the county is the only division that exists for that purpose in England, precisely because no equivalent to states or provinces is in place to supplant them. It does not constitute evidence that English counties are politically equivalent to states or provinces for the purposes of getting from NPOL #2 to NPOL #1 — Wikipedians from England are the ones who spearheaded the consensus that county councils are not a level of government that confers an automatic NPOL pass on every councillor. And no, the North American equivalent to a UK parish would be called a township, not a county — a county here is the same thing as a county there.Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt 'any councillor', this is a (former) member of the 10 member executive cabinet group [26], theres 113 councillors below him.

I'm going back to arguing WP:GNG and author/composer is sufficient. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 21:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being a member of the county council's executive/cabinet still isn't an automatic notability boost over any other county councillor, because it's still a local office that has to be weighed under NPOL #2 rather than NPOL #1 — so it still depends on sourcing that work well enough to get him past GNG for it, not on any automatic inclusion rights. If you want to switch to arguing notability under a creative criterion rather than a political one, that's fine — I have nothing to say about that, since I'm not well-equipped to properly assess creative notability in many cases for a British writer or musician whose audience hasn't crossed The Pond like Radiohead's or Zadie Smith's. My issue in this subthread had to do with the claim that a county council seat could be reified into a provincial or state legislature for the purposes of NPOL, because it can't. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is dragging on a bit. Can someone who has not commented before take a look and give a viewpoint? Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 19:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:NPOL overall fails WP:BIO and does not meet WP:AUTHOR for published books. --EC Racing (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bards are important Abrasapuentes (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As rewritten, the article overcomes the original criticism. Comment: I'm surprised to read that Aguyintobooks is being told not to comment here when his every response is challenged. I don't see how the user is supposed to remain silent and have that viewed as acquiescence. GetSomeUtah (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's saying he can't comment. However, if his comment includes a misunderstanding of what our notability standards entail, or a misrepresentation of how the subject does or doesn't pass them, nobody is obligated to let that misapprehension go unresponded to either. Freedom of speech does not offer an exemption from being responded to by other people who are also exercising their own freedom of speech. Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But clearly not everyone shares your interpretation of NPOL, even on the policy board I can't see anyone to agree that sources related to political activity are discounted when considering notability, nor do I agree that a biography has to pass a subject specific criterion to be encyclopedic relevant when the general notability criteria clearly applies when they do not pass such subject specific guideline.

To quote your comment earlier "My standard is that the person either (a) has a strong claim to passing a subject-specific inclusion standard, or (b) can show that he got quite a lot more reliable source coverage (i.e. quite a bit more than just two, three or four pieces of it) than the woman a mile down the road from my parents got for finding the pig in her yard" - this is obviously your opinion, possibly based on your own interpretation of something written in the ~2250 pages of policy we seem to have. Now my standard is the GNG of - "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" which means at least two sources where the subject is mentioned with enough detail that the person be identified without recourse to research, and the sources not be written by the subject or relation thereof. - there are about 8-9 good sources, 15 if you include the ones about his late political activity. There are more sources offline but that is beside the point because I cannot be asked to manually trawl miles of microfiche.

There is absolutely no way I agree with your assessment of the notability guideline, nor have I noticed your interpretation being used in any context except Corpdepth, where it is admirable. I am not going to suggest you have confused them, so I am strongly disagreeing they work in the same way and calling you a deletionist. I am putting way to much effort into arguing this so I am well glad its about to be closed and I can get on with something else. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 19:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every single county councillor who has ever existed in every county on earth could always show two pieces of local media coverage — so if your "two sources" interpretation were all it took to get a county councillor over GNG, then every county councillor in existence would always pass GNG and our consensus that county councillors are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles would be inherently disembowelled. So no, to get a county councillor past GNG does take a lot more than just two or three pieces of local coverage. I am not wrong about this, nor am I applying any variant personal standards that differ so much as one iota from established consensus in this domain of activity: at the county level of office, we require evidence that the person is more notable than the norm, by virtue of being able to show a lot more and wider coverage than county councillors can always simply be expected to have in their local media. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was of course referring to the coverage by national media as well. I cannot understand the bias against this grouping "Every single county councillor who has ever existed in every county on earth" is ~56,000 people, as councils were only invented in the 19th century in England and around the 1960-1980's in much of the world. Their equivalents in China and Indian (where the exist) are not elected in the same way and do not get news coverage, seemingly a western preoccupation. NPOL does not put forward what you say, it infact specifically states quite the contrary; "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".", and from the common outcomes policy, which also does not support your interpretation "Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics". Therefore I must still disagree with you, even though I am confident he passes by his other accomplishments, notably the bardic work, before his political career that he seemingly only started after retirement. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 20:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree does not meet WP:NPOL. Poorly referenced including a list of every reference they appear to have even been tangentially referenced in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I regretfully concur that this does not meet WP:NPOL and the level of available sources does not reach WP:GNG either, the list of references show a valiant attempt to show what there is, yet it is unfortunately not significant coverage of this man. MartinJones (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just posting the references removed by Doc James and brigade just before their comments here after sticking an edit war template on my talk page after two reverts (really?). I am not saying they are completely biased, but anyway here are references they removed:^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]^[16]^[17]^[18]^[19]^[20]^[21]^[22]^[23]^[24]^[25]^[26]^[27]^[28]^[29]^[30]^[31]^[32]^[33] --- Α Guy Into Books™ § (Message) - 20:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This ONE is particularly interesting in that it contains nothing. That is correct, nothing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thats hardly my fault, it had content at one point. --- Α Guy Into Books™ § (Message) - 21:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure what this massive list of "refs" is supposed to be not a single one of them satisfies GNG and certainly isn't independent reliable coverage. And neither does anything else I can find. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well clearly you didn't look very hard, not at the article even, also you forgot to sign.^[34] --- Α Guy Into Books™ § (Message) - 21:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I read both the article and the massive refspam list here - none of it includes coverage. Perhaps you can point out the specific sources that feature in-depth coverage?CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ok:

Subject is a bard of the Gorsedh Kernow, which in itself is enough to pass criterion 1 of WP:CREATIVE. His work as a menstrel in the Kernewek tradition has received significant critical attention and therefore meets criterion 4 of WP:CREATIVE.

(will add more) --- Α Guy Into Books™ § (Message) - 22:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Doc James, Bearcat, and Chrissymad. Fails NPOL. The great things about the subject notability guidelines is that they give us a lens through witch to view the GNG: if they have coverage that would be expected for their level in their chosen field, but do not meet the subject guideline, it is unlikely that they will meet our standards for the GNG, because the coverage will have been deemed run of the mill. That is the case here. An appeal to the GNG from an SNG is possible, but I don't see there being enough in this case. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: yes I thinks its established he fails NPOL, what about the rest? --- Α Guy Into Books™ § (Message) -

I'm not convinced by your above arguments in that regard. Considering the CREATIVE 1 claim is dubious: the overwhleming majority of people listed at Gorsedh_Kernow#Lists_of_Cornish_bards_and_venues are not articles. That suggests that the Wikipedia community hasn't generally recognized it as meeting that criterion. There is zero evidence he also meets CREATIVE 4: if you can provide peer reviewed work concerning him or provide in-depth reviews and commentary from highly reliable sources, I might be convinced to change my mind, but none of what has been presented gets near that standard from what I can see. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Highly reliable"? Well that puts him out of the picture. :) Druids, Bards and other esteemed old bearded people are not known for their highly reliable work. I doubt any sane mainstream reviewer would even bother, in fact the Indepedant had this to say. Its a matter of some national pride to only publish commentary on bardic work in Cornish. eg. Viajor Gans Geryow eus rydhses gans y brentin gonis... etc (from a commentary by Skogyn Pryv) In short you can take what you will from it. --- Α Guy Into Books™ § (Message) - 20:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CREATIVE 4 requires significant critical coverage of their work. That means analysis and reviews that engage with the text, not simply press coverage. In response to your comment above re: CREATIVE 1, the Wikipedia community does not seem to share your opinion that this title is generally sufficient for inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more correct to say that Wikipedians haven't considered it before, I mean all the comments on bards above^ are pretty positive. There is no way obscure publications written in a dead language spoken only 1000 people could be considered press coverage, or really any form of popular culture, the whole cultural tradition only survives because the EU think it is nationally important to support this minority ethnic group and therefore gives it funding. --- Α Guy Into Books™ § (Message) - 21:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically the entire argument above is mostly irrelevant back and forth about policies that don't really apply, what matters is that crition 1 of WP:CREATIVE 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. This is definitely passed, as stated by myself and five others here, the fact no one can look beyond the politics is neither here nor there, you can discount every single reference and he would still be notable according to the subject specific guidelines. Its not really possible at the moment to write as much about this person as is perhaps going to be written eventually, mostly due to sources being on microfiche and in other languages, nevertheless there is a sufficient amount of verifiable information already included to make a start class article. --- Α Guy Into Books™ § (Message) - 21:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Councillor details - Bert Biscoe". 30 August 2017.
^ "Bert Biscoe: Working for the future of Truro and Cornwall on the Cornwall County Council". www.bertbiscoe.co.uk.
^ "Bert Biscoe - SaveTruro". www.savetruro.co.uk.
^ "Bert Biscoe - Voices of Cornwall". voicesofcornwall.co.uk.
^ "Bert Biscoe".
^ "bert biscoe - Business Cornwall". www.businesscornwall.co.uk.
^ http://www.cornwalllive.com/comment-bert-biscoe/story-20906203-detail/story.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ http://www.cornwalllive.com/city-s-heritage-constant-threat-says-bert/story-11386148-detail/story.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ "Hear Bert Biscoe's song Wilwaukee - Cornwall Today". www.cornwalltoday.co.uk.
^ "Bert Biscoe - Isonomia". Isonomia.
^ "Bert Biscoe and a piece of very important and very rare memorabilia". queenincornwall.blogspot.co.uk. 2010-11-18.
^ "Bert Biscoe, and the Mayor of Launceston: opening 'A Space to Write' - The Charles Causley Festival".
^ "Bert Biscoe Vote Independent". ElectionLeaflets.org.
^ "Meditations Carn Brea Poems Pictures by Bert Biscoe Cliff Jones - AbeBooks". www.abebooks.co.uk.
^ http://www.cornishassembly.org/OpenLetterToSarahNewtonMP27viii12.pdf. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ Tregarthen, John Coulson (30 August 2017). John Penrose: A Romance of the Land's End. Cornwall Editions Ltd. ISBN 9781904880028 – via Google Books.
^ "WATCH: Protests over new Truro bus gate". 2017-03-16.
^ "Cllr Bert Biscoe gave a most interesting and enlightening talk. - West Cornwall HealthWatch". westcornwallhealthwatch.com.
^ "A response from Bert Biscoe". mebyonkernow.blogspot.co.uk.
^ "Trustees - Royal Cornwall Museum".
^ "Welcome to Cornwall Association of Primary Heads".
^ http://www.cornwalllive.com/Parking-crisis-Truro-makes-life-just-hell/story-20511752-detail/story.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ "Tintagel Castle Merlin carving sparks 'Disneyfication' row". BBC News. 18 March 2016 – via www.bbc.co.uk.
^ "Local residents complain after 'Disneyfication' of King Arthur site".
^ "A bridge too far: The controversial plans to transform Tintagel".
^ Goskar, Tehmina (21 February 2013). "Cornish heritage is a man's game".
^ "Poetry: Trura - Cornish Story". cornishstory.com.
^ "Councillor Contact Details - Truro City Council". www.truro.gov.uk.
^ "Truro Civic Society". trurocivicsociety.com.
^ Metro.co.uk, Oliver Wheaton for (22 November 2015). "Council spends £30,000 on bus lane, it causes chaos, they're forced to scrap it".
^ "Brainiac 5 interview". www.psychedelicbabymag.com. 2014-05-02.
^ Morris, Steven (18 March 2016). "'This is not Disneyland, it's Cornwall': the battle of Tintagel Castle" – via The Guardian.
^ Council, Cornwall. "St Mary's Church spire moved back to Truro Cathedral - Cornwall Council". www.cormacltd.co.uk.
^ "Poets lead Cornish revolt against 'English imperialism'". The Independent. 18 May 1997. Retrieved 26 September 2017.

Admin closer please.

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. But yes, number of followers on soundcloud is not really relevant Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Jack[edit]

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

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

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

Largely unsourced, does not meet notability criteria. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage for this group in independent reliable sources; appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BAND. gongshow talk 09:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here passes any WP:NMUSIC criterion, and there's no evidence of the reliable source media coverage required to pass WP:GNG in lieu — the only references here are a primary source and a WordPress blog, which are not notability-assisting sources. As always, Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform for aspiring wannabes — making it big comes first and then the Wikipedia article follows, not vice versa. Note I'm also adding their two albums which also have separate articles, as they will also have to go if this does. Bearcat (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Only 63 followers on soundcloud! Abrasapuentes (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we don't measure notability by counting social media followers per se — we measure it by the volume of reliable source media coverage that can or can't be shown, not by how many followers they do or don't have on Facebook or Twitter or Soundcloud or YouTube. But it does point in the direction of their not being particularly well-known — it's just not the determining factor in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not finding significant coverage in RS for the band or its albums that are also nominated for deletion herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 27 September 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 10:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Scientific Council on the Developing Child[edit]

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

Lack of coverage in independent secondary sources. Geogene (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hum. This is a tricky one. On the one hand there doesn't appear to be a whole lot of coverage in secondary sources, but then there isn't nothing either. There is the UNESCO publication mentioned on the page, there are other mentions in other publications, books etc. On the other hand it appears to be a center for academics in the area based at Harvard, I'm not sure that it has a whole lot of wider importance outside of the narrow expert field it works in. I don't really know how to assess the notability. People attached to it have appeared in the popular media as spokespeople, I suppose by that measure it is notable enough to be a thing. 20:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)JMWt (talk)

I think this is pretty straightforward. I don't consider the brief mention in the UNESCO document to be secondary, because it cites NSCDC 2007, which is most likely a press release or the organization's website. I have not checked up on the authors to see if they are members of NSCDC, but if some of them are, then that would definitely make that a primary source because then they would be writing about their own research group. I don't doubt that a group of academics calls themselves this, and that they have a website hosted on a Harvard server. But it fails the notability standards because there are no independent sources about the group. The idea here is to write an article, not a dictionary or directory entry, and to do that without engaging in original research. There's not enough out there to do that. Geogene (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. I wouldn't say it is "straightforward", but generally agree that there isn't any secondary sources about the council (rather than referencing it) that I can find. JMWt (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles need to be based on indepdent, scholarly sources which are lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm getting 31 hits for the group's name at Newspapers.com, all paywalled. Apparently a publisher of academic monographs based at Harvard. 14K hits on Google for "(the name of the group) + Harvard." THIS article in The Atlantic makes use of the chair of NSCDC as an expert in his field. Wikipedia would be weakened by the deletion, in my estimation, so I advise Keep under the policy of Ignore All Rules. Carrite (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:28, 20 September 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) 19:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cappincur GAA[edit]

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

I can't see how this team can possibly meet the notability criteria, only plays in a county league Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of competing in a national competition; fails GNG also Spiderone 10:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 19:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Battlefield[edit]

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

Self-written non-notable band Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC; blatantly promotional. Blackguard 17:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMUSIC. -- Dane ^talk 19:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't judge the WP:RS quality of these two sources: [27][28] but they do provide some significant coverage of the band. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Not notable/important. Abrasapuentes (talk) 22:23, 20 September 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. Keep vote rationales are erroneous. Player fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football (only youth teams) 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) 11:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Egy Maulana Vikri[edit]

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

Did not meet WP:NFOOTY. Yogwi21 (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

so many other page with less information like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhyar_Rashid but not proposed to be deleted. i suggest you proposed other page like this to be deleted too. these are some examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguy%E1%BB%85n_Kh%E1%BA%AFc_Khi%C3%AAm, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eakkanit_Punya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zamakh1986 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. he is plays in national teams, very famous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.254.111.224 (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league, or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above !votes. At the young age the subject is this is clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON and article can always be recreated if and when the subject meets the WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL requirements. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has played in a fully pro league and national team, and very famous in Asia Persibandoeng (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Persibandoeng: Egy's team (Persab Brebes) does not play in the Liga 1 (Indonesia), and also Egy has never played for the national team, only on youth level. Thus the subject of the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Egy has played in a national team againts Cambodia national football team 8 June, when indonesia used u-22 players, but for FIFA Match (Senior). 180.254.111.224 (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may not !vote more than once. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And he did not play in that game according to this source or this source. Not even on the bench. ClubOranje^T 11:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep iF Egy has played in a national team. MbahBotak (talk) 11:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Egy has played in a national team.who meets WP:NFOOTY Saya Indonesia (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guys Egy hasn't yet played for the Indonesia senior national team, so he doesn't yet meet WP:NFOOTY. Playing at youth level doesn't qualify as WP:NFOOTY. Sources such as this make it clear that Egy has only played at youth level. If anyone can find a reliable source showing that he played at senior national level I would gladly change my !vote but so far I'm not seeing anything. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep famous player in Asia. Imnotyou11 (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not yet achieved notability criteria for footballers per WP:NFOOTBALL. Has NOT played senior international, and NFOOTBALL specifically excludes youth appearances as conferring notability. Some coverage out there, but not enough in my opinion to satisfy GNG. Some hype suggests he may make it in the near future, but Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. Currently WP:TOOSOON, but recreate if and when.ClubOranje^T 11:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom DaveApter (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep iF Egy has played in a national team. 171.98.223.61 (talk) 02:57, 21 September 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bitnation[edit]

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

Unambiguous advertising, makes largely unfounded and wildly inaccurate claims about this unrecognised nation that has no territory and may be some internet hype storm/hoax. Claims various things to do with ID papers, marriages and insurance, none of which have any legal standing anywhere except perhaps la la land?. Also probably fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. —Syrenka V (talk) 09:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite having 41 references and puffery about being a nation-state, this is merely buzzword-fueled hype for what is effectively a web forum. I'm not certain it doesn't meet WP:WEB, but the entire article would be re-written from scratch. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is definitely written like an advertisement, selectively stating opinions as fact (and I have accordingly added an {{advert}} tag) but that lack of neutrality can be—and should have been—fixed without even considering deletion. POV is rarely a reason to delete. Even the section WP:G11 within WP:SPEEDY states that "If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." All that would be needed would be some objectivity about which of the project's claims are accepted by whom, and more discrimination in the use of sources (favoring the independent ones). The article on the Principality of Sealand could serve as a model; the present article's last two sections (Reception and Controversies) are steps in the right direction. The nominator's claims that the article "probably fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH" and "may be some internet hype storm/hoax" will not withstand a look through the sources, especially those for the last two sections.

—Syrenka V (talk) 09:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator Comment ~~(Delete)~~ regarding Syrenka V's comments. Only 2 or 3 of the references even meet WP:RS, the vast bulk of the text is not backed up by verifiable sources, I still don't see significant coverage by reliable media sources. All I see is a tissue of complex wording and hype generated by the Bitcoin interest group community. Since the so called nation has been happy to work as a digital signature company in Estonia it seems to have limited sources, but not enough for WP:GNG. I am going to rewrite it and put a link here. A Guy into Books (talk) 11:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking over the sources. The Wall Street Journal article needs you to log in to read it. [29] The CNN article [30] only mentions it in one sentence: "This could be the ultimate calling for start-ups such as BitNation, which has already begun issuing virtual IDs -- effectively digital passports -- using blockchain technology." The Telegraph article [31] does count is significant coverage in a reliable source. Forbers coverage counts towards notability as well. [32] And this source as well counts towards it[33] Most of the article was created by one single purpose account [34], who might be working for them. It does look like a commercial in its current state, so needs some work done. Dream Focus 11:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten the article, User:Aguyintobooks/sandbox/Articles/Bitnation, I only see 3. reliable sources. 1. the series of articles by ibtimes. and 2. The Telegraph article. The Wall Street Journal article is just a blog post by a contributor. the CNN article is just a passing mention. All the articles that mention Estonia are infact referring to Estonia's e-residency system, not Bitnations system, in this context, Bitnation is a private company, one of many, providing technical support for e-signatures. so that leaves 3. the forbes article. all the others are primary sources or passing mentions. I still don't think this passes WP:CORPDEPTH. A Guy into Books (talk) 12:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Watching this video provided some insight on the context and authenticity of the Bitnation project (experiment) 7m34s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iAg6BITPdc looking far into the future, this article has value to be kept — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toothache (talk • contribs) 17:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. A purely promotional page, with content such as:

In December 2014 Bitnation announced it was working with Johan Nygren’s resilience.me Basic Income protocol, built on a mutual insurance-like structure!

Etc. Such content is specifically excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Bartlett, Jamie (2017). Radicals Chasing Utopia: Inside the Rogue Movements Trying to Change the World. New York: Nation Books. ISBN 1568589875. Retrieved 2017-09-08.
  The book notes:
  
  The more Susanne looked into it, the more she became convinced it was a way to build a free-market anarchist state online, allowing citizens to meet, communicate, make agreements, resolve disputes, provide peer-to-peer security and social insurance and trade with each other in a way that could not be monitored or controlled. After travelling the world to research it further, in early 2014 she wrote a short paper announcing this new nation that would permit people to come together and voluntarily agree how to live: 'The arbitrarily drawn lines called borders, which were once supposed to provide stability, are now the direct cause of instability, due to their "one size fits all" design... [W]e need to replace the nation state model with a better, non-geographical model and voluntary model: Bitnation.' Unlike Liberland, everything is virtual. To become a 'Bitnation citizen' is extremely simple. In fact, I'm one of about 5,000 Bitnation citizens dotted all over the world. All I had to do was agree with the Bitnation constitution, which is a twelve-line poem, and sign up on the site. I input my age, height, and a photo, two witnesses watched and typed in their names, and that generated a 'World Citizenship ID'. A 'hash' of this ID (a unique string of numberse that can be used, in conjunction with a key, to re-create the original file) was then uploaded onto a blockchain, where it will now stay, unchanged, forever.
  ...
  When Susanne presented Bitnation to the conference—which she did while smoking—she explained that the long-term aim of Bitnation, beyond the ID cards and notary services, is to provide a platform for people to come together with other free adults and live according to a set of laws and arbitration methods they've agreed and consented to amongst themselves. It is to create a nation based on the non-aggression principles. Bitnation allows you to take a system of law—modelled on common law, Sharia law or even a law code you've designed yourself—write it up as a private contract, put it on that unchangeable blockchain and invite others to sign up and live by it, tying any digital assets to the agreements made. This is the outer reaches of libertarian thought: polycentric legal systems that live alongside each other and even compete with each other.
  The book extensively discusses the founding and principles of Bitnation.
2. Souli, Sarah (2016-09-12). "I Became a Citizen of Bitnation, a Blockchain-Powered Virtual Nation. Now What?". Vice. Retrieved 2017-09-08.
  The article notes:
  
  Virtual. Decentralized. Voluntary. Borderless.
  This is Bitnation, a blockchain-powered government service platform like nothing else. Except, surprisingly, Antarctica.
  "That's currently the only place in the world not covered by nation-state jurisdiction," Susanne Tarkowski Tempelhof, the platform's founder told me matter-of-factly, lighting up a cigarette.
  ...
  Bitnation has nearly 4,000 citizens flung across the globe, though the majority—and its spokesperson—are based in Europe. The platform is gaining momentum at a time when the strains of the nation-state model are increasingly evident. Europe, the birthplace of the Peace of Westphalia and the emergence of sovereign jurisdiction as we know it, is seemingly plagued by a rise in right-wing nationalism, an uneven debt crisis, an influx of refugees, and a Brexit.
  ...
  Through some targeted programs, Bitnation has been able to address specific inadequacies of the European nation-state model. The platform's Refugee Emergency Response project, for example, provides emergency digital ID cards and Bitcoin Visa cards to people escaping war-torn countries and arriving on the shores of Europe.
3. Marty, Belén (2014-10-17). "Bitnation Founder on a Mission for Stateless Governance". PanAm Post. Archived from the original on 2017-09-08. Retrieved 2017-09-08.
  The article notes:
  
  The state might one day become obsolete. At least that’s the idea behind the peculiar Bitnation project, which refers to itself as a “collaborative platform for do-it-yourself government.” According to its official website, “Bitnation provides the same services traditional governments provide, from dispute resolutions and insurance to security and much more — but in a geographically unbound, decentralized, and voluntary way.”
  This revolutionary undertaking is incorporated on the blockchain, the same decentralized database behind cryptocurrencies, such as bitcoin.
  Susanne T. Tempelhof is the young founder and executive director of this ambitious project that began a couple of months ago. She plans to raise US$2 million in the next 85 days to get Bitnation off the ground. “If we raise $1 million, or even only $500,000, we will still be able to continue, but it will be a lot more stressful,” she told the PanAm Post.
  The journey leading up to Bitnation’s launch has not been without its share of controversy, including publicized disputes between Tempelhof and other members of the team. A few days ago, Cointelegraph published an interview claiming three core members of the team (Nathan Wosnack, Matt Mckibbin, and David Mondrus) abandoned the company.
4. Hartlep, Michael (2016-03-15). "Bitnation – The virtual country. Online activists have founded a virtual state called Bitnation. The decentralized organization is designed as an alternative to traditional states. There are no limits, and a wide range of options". Deutsche Welle. Archived from the original on 2017-09-08. Retrieved 2017-09-08.
  The summary of the video notes:
  Bitnation knows no hierarchies, is autonomous, and is based on voluntary participation. Anyone can join, contribute and offer services. The idea is based on the cryptocurrency bitcoin and the technology that produced the latter: blockchain. There are currently 1500 “citizens” worldwide. Bitnation is not without controversy, however. According to the Montevideo Convention a number of conditions must be fulfilled to be recognized as a state. They include a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the ability to enter into relations with other states. Bitnation fails to meet a number of these stipulations.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bitnation to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update on sources: this version of the page, which is the current one as I write this, contains 36 of the original 41 sources in the article, formatted as full references, not just titled links. I've removed some references that were just duplicates of others, as well as a few that I felt were total nonstarters (like one that was explicitly sourced to a press release). Formatting the remaining 36 references does not indicate a commitment to retaining them; it's just to allow us all to see clearly what's under discussion as the more dubious ones get removed. Still less does it indicate a commitment to retaining the present text of the article. The plan is to remove all references that are not suitable, then rewrite the article based on the ones that remain (and possibly some new references, like the book mentioned in the previous writer's comment). More sources will likely remain than those cited in the nominator's userspace rewrite—for example, the article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, which is to Germany roughly what The New York Times is to the USA—but much less than 36 or 41.

I think all sources written by Giulio Prisco, wherever published, will have to be rejected as non-independent. In this source he himself indicates how close he is to Bitnation founder Tempelhof—too close to be independent as a reporter. All periodicals and websites specifically devoted to Bitcoin will probably have to be rejected too (or maybe retain only Bitcoin Magazine?) on the ground that, even if actual conflict of interest does not exist in every case, suspicions of conflict will prevent them from being accepted by consensus as reliable sources.

—Syrenka V (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any source even remotely related to bit-coin is going to be unreliable when discussing 'their new country', personally I think this includes Bitcoin Magazine, who stand to gain by publicize this project and are therefore connected. The hype surrounding this project is very good, but ultimately seems to be in-bubble fringe theories mixed with technological enterprise. I see no sources doing anything except a passing mention or parroting a press report. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 12:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no clear gain from publicizing Bitnation for a source that is tied to Bitcoin (but not specifically tied to Bitnation already, in the way that Giulio Prisco is). In fact, there is a considerable risk of harming their cause by getting themselves dismissed as "in-bubble fringe" along with Bitnation, whose similarity to the notoriously fringey Principality of Sealand is obvious. The conflict I was referring to as a reason for dismissing Bitcoin-related publications as reliable sources was a bit different. It's a consideration referred to in the section WP:QS (including footnote 8) within the policy WP:V, and is related to Bitcoin itself, not Bitnation. At this stage in the development of Bitcoin, it's likely (though not inevitable—but "apparent" as well as actual COI prevents a source from being considered reliable) that anyone interested enough in Bitcoin to found a publication about it will be holding a position in Bitcoin, and will therefore be conflicted. As I interpret WP:V, such a conflict would apply to the entire publication and anything it publishes. For this reason, I'm willing to go along with removing all such sources from the Bitnation article. I don't think we need them.

As to "I see no sources doing anything except a passing mention or parroting a press report": have you run the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reference through Google Translate? It is in depth and not remotely like a press release—although the way it is used in the present article is misleading at best. What is more, it quotes academic experts with critical commentary on the theories underlying Bitnation. My follow-up on those quotations has revealed an ongoing discussion of Bitnation and its underlying theories in academic and legal circles. For example:

Khan, Jamil (2017). "To what extent can blockchain be used as a tool for community guidance?" (PDF). Edinburgh Student Law Review. 3 (2): 114–133.

Atzori, Marcella (December 1, 2015). "Blockchain technology and decentralized governance: is the state still necessary?". SSRN. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2709713.

Atzori, Marcella (May 1, 2017). "Blockchain governance and the role of trust service providers: the TrustedChain® network". SSRN. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2972837.

That these articles are highly critical of the theories underlying Bitnation does not make them any less valuable as sources; if anything, it makes them more valuable.

—Syrenka V (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SPIP miserably as entirely promotional. Not only that but none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. The CNN reference is a mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. There's been one or two stating that the Telegraph article meets the criteria for establishing notability but since the facts and details are from the founder with no independent opinions expressed, it is not intellectually independent and also fails WP:ORGIND. The Forbes article (like just about all the Forbes articles I've examined) fails also as it merely repeats what BitNation says about itself and fails WP:ORGIND and is not intellectually independent. Cunard's mini-novel contains the usual overly-long and excessive quotations which often resemble the results of searching for the search term in "reliable sources" with no thorough examination of whether the reference itself is intellectually independent or otherwise meets the criteria for establishing notability. Although it is a total mish-mash, occasionally Cunard turns up some gems which are good references. So for the sake of completeness.... the first reference from a book by Jamie Bartlett is clearly an interview with the founder and therefore fails as a PRIMARY source, not intellectually independent, and fails both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The next reference is a Vice article and once again contains extensive quotations from the founder and from an "ambassador" ... but I believe it meets the criteria for establishing notability as it also provides opinions from unconnected and intellectually independent sources such as Dr. Jennifer Jackson-Preece from LSE and includes the journalist's own opinion.The PanAmPost reference fails since it relies almost exclusively on an interview with the founder and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. The final reference from dw.com fails as it is an interview from another "ambassador" and is therefore a PRIMARY source and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. A common misunderstanding of the Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is that it is the *source* which must be independent but this is incorrect. It is the reference itself which must be independent. Clearly, an "independent source" can publish a company announcement word-for-word and still remain an independent source but the reference would not be independent. Many of the examples provided appear to fall foul of this misunderstanding. In summary, the criteria for establishing notability has not beet met. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that the specific reference, not just the periodical or other publication, must be independent of the subject, here "independent of" means merely "not under the control of". It merely "excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it", to use WP:GNG's own words. Simple pass-through of e.g. press releases written by the subject (even with paraphrase) fails this criterion, but extensive quotation accompanied by critical analysis is another matter entirely. That is what we see in the Forbes article (Coppola 2016-04-03) and the Telegraph article (Bartlett 2016-05-24); they therefore satisfy WP:GNG's independence criterion. Even an interview is independent of the subject as long as the interviewer, not the subject, is deciding what questions will be asked. (Try asking someone interviewed by e.g. Dan Rather whether the resulting publication was under their control!) An interview is a primary source, since it is based on material not previously published elsewhere, unlike articles that use quotations, but that's a separate matter from independence.

Remember also that even an article based around an interview can be a secondary source for material it includes from other sources than the interview. As WP:PRIMARY says, "A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one, and sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement." WP:PRIMARY is probably the most misused (section of a) policy in existence, mainly from neglect of this point.

WP:CORPDEPTH is probably the most misused (section of a) guideline in existence. It takes the form of a list of types of coverage that are trivial and not in depth, and explicitly states that all other types of coverage are acceptable—and even so, indicates that sources not providing substantial coverage individually can still do so cumulatively: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[2] independent sources should be cited to establish notability." The discussion of "passing mention" is also frequently misinterpreted; it is not equivalent to "brief mention". The example provided is "identifying a quoted person as working for an organization." A mention that is an integral part of an argument made by the source, however brief, is not a mention in passing.

—Syrenka V (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually your interpretation of CORPDEPTH is incorrect, Firstly the list is not exhaustive, so you saying: ...explicitly states that all other types of coverage are acceptable is incorrect since the list is only a few examples.

Secondly you say: sources not providing substantial coverage individually can still do so cumulatively this simply means if CORPDEPTH is not satisfied, consider falling back on a stringent test of building the required depth from a number of substantial sources. (they still cant be passing mentions). The teat for this is to be able to construct a start class article from lean paraphrasing of only independent sources.

You are confusing independent sources with secondary sources, independent sources must be intellectually distinct and neutral third parties from the primary organization and have no COI, which is applied very tightly to include anyone who may benefit from promotion. HighKing is infact correct in his analysis that references including an interview cannot be used in this context (this is a long standing consensus). Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 22:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, "such as" in WP:CORPDEPTH leaves open the possibility of other examples besides the ones in the list. Still, the list is the only definition given of what "trivial or incidental" means, and even a brief mention like the one in the CNN article is far different from any of the examples in the list—in particular, from the example of a "passing mention": "identifying a quoted person as working for an organization". The CNN article identifies Bitnation's virtual IDs as an answer to the question asked in the article's title. Nothing in WP:CORPDEPTH supports the classification of that mention as "trivial or incidental", brief though it is.

Any "longstanding consensus" achieved in AfDs (which appear to attract a select group, distinct from the much larger mass of editors who over time produce the editing consensus described in WP:EDITCONSENSUS) must yield to the text of policies and even guidelines. There is nothing in WP:N, WP:CORPDEPTH, or WP:PRIMARY (or even in the essay WP:IS) to support the exclusion of a source as non-independent because it contains, or even is solely, an interview (though the latter case would make it primary).

My objection to page deletion, much more so than to removal of material from the text of a page, is precisely that an AfD "consensus" for deletion forecloses, rather than furthers, the true consensus achievable by editing. Page deletion breaks the chalkboard, rather than merely erasing and rewriting it. For Wikipedian experts and power users this may not be true. But most casual editors of Wikipedia, however knowledgeable they may be about article subject matter, are not going to go through WP:REFUND or similar processes to raise a deleted page from the dead. Deletion ought to be reserved for cases where it is unlikely that a chalkboard will ever be needed for that particular topic, or where WP:BLP or similar creates an urgency to deletion that is not normally present. Bitnation is neither kind of case.

—Syrenka V (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to what Aguyintobooks says, the criteria for establishing notability is stricter than the criteria for supporting claims made in articles. A claim contained in an article that is supported by a reference to an interview may be acceptable for inclusion in the article, but it is not acceptable for establishing notability. References for the purposes of establishing notability must be intellectually independent and this can be very difficult in circumstances where the majority of the facts and data is provided by the interviewee in response to questions and especially when the reference provides no independent analysis or opinion on the provided quotes. I disagree with your assertion that the Forbes article meets the criteria as an independent source since the article clearly states "Here is what BitNation says about itself" followed by two mentions-in-passing. Similarly, the Telegraph article is a long interview but has no "intellectual independence" and provides no independent analysis or opinion on the information provided by the founder during an interview. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition I fail to see how a consensus reached on an AfD page is somehow subservient to a consensus reached elsewhere. Nor does deleting this page destroy 'the chalkboard', this whole article could be summed up in a few paragraphs and put on the Blockchain article, where your arguments would infact merit its inclusion. nor does its deletion stop it being recreated if and when actual notability arises. 13:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC) Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 16:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Easily meets notability. Just click the links in the "Find sources" searches at the top. Here for instance are many significant mentions in major reliable independent sources: [35]. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Pointing to the result of a google search isn't helpful. Any chance you could post a link or two that we could check against the criteria for establishing notability? Otherwise your !vote is probably a waste of time since the result isn't about counting !votes. If there are so many "significant mentions", should be no bother to you at all. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first 10 results at that link include articles from Forbes, The Telegraph, Wired (two articles), CNN, The Economist, and UNESCO. You are welcome to take a look. Softlavender (talk) 05:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Having checked the first ten pages, couldn't find these sources. decided the use search terms like ("bitnation" cnn) etc.
      CNN article. ISIS is everywhere -- is it time for a global passport? - a passing mention only in an article about passports.
      Forbes article. Ethereum: Towards A New BitSociety - a passing mention only in an article about a cryptocurrency.
      The Telegraph article. article - The article is about Liberland, Bitnation features along with several other companies, In two paragraphs.
      The Wired article. Radical Politics - this is a better source, if you think wired is reliable. the article simply explains what happened in a PR event held by Bitnation, including some details given in a press release.
      The Econonmist. [ttps://www.economist.com/news/world-if/21724906-trust-business-little-noticed-huge-startups-deploying-blockchain-technology-threaten Blockhain Startups] - this is a passing mention in an article about the blockchain that covers several companies.
      UNESCO. netexpo forum - A swedish refugee initiative won a public recognition award, Bitnation supplied some of the technology.
      I have already been through these sources, they don't show CORPDEPTH or GNG. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 09:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:Notability is a low bar, as what Wikipedia wants is reliable information about anything that catches the attention of the world at large. Google itself can be used as the reliable source to show, with a Google search as the objective evidence, that, as per the WP:N nutshell, the topic has attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time. These searches can be found with WP:BEFORE D1 on Google web, Google news, Google books, and Google scholar. Unscintillating (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Aguyintobooks: Did you click the link I actually provided: [36]? The very first page provides all of the links I referred to. This two-page Forbes article has five paragraphs on BitNation. This Telegraph article has seven paragraphs on BitNation. This Wired article has three paragraphs on BitNation. This UNESCO link documents the Grand Prix of 2017 awarded to BitNation Refugee Emergency Response. This Wired article has ten paragraphs about BitNation. This CNN article presents BitNation as the prime example of the article's subject, which is global passports. This The Economist article presents BitNation as the prime and only example of "virtual countries". Softlavender (talk) 09:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per User:Syrenka V, and also as per evidence from Google and the WP:N nutshell that this topic has attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time. Unscintillating (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Further update on sources: I've now incorporated into the page a number of the references provided by Cunard and Softlavender above, as well as the academic sources I referenced above by Jamil Khan and Marcella Atzori, and a few more sources I found, such as Juri Mattila's ETLA working paper, Brett Scott's UNRISD working paper, and Morgen Peck's IEEE Spectrum news article. Khan characterizes Bitnation as a "paradigmatic example" of the techno-libertarian ideology of "governance through blockchain" that is the principal topic of his article. Likewise, Atzori's 2015 paper states the following (emphasis added):

Although the view about the role of the State may differ, a growing category of political technopreneurs and evangelists of decentralization have already developed projects for the creation of cryptonations – namely stateless, do-it-yourself governance services entirely based on the blockchain (e.g. Bitnation¹²). The aim of this paper is to critically examine such proposals, which challenge to varying degrees the traditional mechanisms of State authority, citizenship and democracy.

My addition of new sources should not be construed as tacit acceptance of deletionist arguments against the use of sources already present in the page. Quite apart from meta-level questions of how the relevant policies and guidelines should be interpreted, some of those deletionist arguments very seriously misread the actual content of the sources they criticize. Their characterization of Frances Coppola's article in Forbes is an extreme example. After Coppola writes "Here is what Bitnation says about itself", literally every word of the main text of her article thereafter is devoted to exposition or critique of Bitnation's position as she sees it. She first provides a quotation with a link to Bitnation's site, followed by a two-sentence summary of Bitnation's claims as she understands them, comparing Bitnation to "Galt's Gulch". Then follow five paragraphs of critique, the first beginning with "Except that it isn't", comparing Bitnation to a religious cult, and describing it as a rigid rule-based system posing dangers to human social organization. What is more, the discussion of Bitnation is not a digression, but the culmination of her critique of Ethereum in the rest of the article. She explicitly presents Bitnation as the logical conclusion, presented by Ethereum itself, of Ethereum's proposed changes to the nature of contract law: "Ethereum has the answer. A new, global, virtual legal system. In fact a new, global, virtual country."

—Syrenka V (talk) 05:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on relevant policies and guidelines: when I wrote my comments above about interviews, I was unaware of the existence of the essay WP:INTERVIEW. As an essay, it is not authoritative, but it doesn't need to be: it makes a strong and articulate case, from the relevant policies and guidelines, that articles based around interviews can nevertheless contain considerable material that can be used as a secondary and independent source, and thus can be used to support claims of notability. The argument is similar to the one I made above, but much more detailed.

As to why a "a consensus reached on an AfD page is somehow subservient to a consensus reached elsewhere", and why even a "longstanding consensus" across many AfDs cannot override the straightforward text of policies and guidelines, this is a direct application of the section WP:CONLEVEL within WP:CONSENSUS:

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.

As noted above, AfDs appear to attract a select group—I'm referring to those who habitually frequent AfDs, not those who show up at a particular AfD because they are interested in its specific topic. Those within this group may be tempted to treat previous AfDs on other topics as if they were precedent-setting case law, but I see no support for that within WP:CONSENSUS or other policies and guidelines. How would new or infrequent participants in AfDs even know about these traditions? Should they take the word of AfD veterans for it? There are no lawbooks of AfDs, and administrators are not judges (nor are AfD participants jurors or advocates). There are only the policies and guidelines, and a few ancillary forums like the noticeboards. (It is not past AfDs, but these forums, which are searchable, that are Wikipedia's closest analogue to case law.)

The picture WP:CONSENSUS paints is of consensus emerging mostly from long-term editing or talk page discussion, which, because it is long-term, involves the participation of the whole community, or rather of all within it who care about the particular topic under discussion. Editing and discussion are in turn constrained by the policies and guidelines, and by forums such as noticeboards, which are also supposed to be visible to the whole community and subject to long-term scrutiny and eventual consensus. These are the authorities to which an individual AfD discussion is answerable. It is not answerable to other, past AfDs.

This is not just a theoretical issue but a practical one, and it goes far beyond the question whether articles containing interviews can influence notability. I've already seen a marked disconnect in AfDs, including this one, between the actual text of policies and guidelines (especially WP:PRIMARY, WP:ORGIND, AND WP:CORPDEPTH) and the way some attempt to use them. If an interpretation of a policy or guideline cannot be justified directly from its text, aided at most by e.g. noticeboard rulings, then it cannot be justified by reference to past AfDs either.

—Syrenka V (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

The article described Bitnation in its linguistic, technological, journalistic, and commentary terms with 67 references alongside 3 books and 3 external links. Most of the claims are verifiable by notable news agencies worldwide. The tone is informative, which also include points of views from positive, negative, questioning, criticizing, and side-watching people from researches of notable universities, notable audit firms, and recognizable news agencies. As a major contributor to the current article (by content only), I have also followed the consensus to avoid bitcoin-related magazines, even though important information may undeniably skipped during the secondary research process. As I read through the comments above, most of the negative comments regarding the article are either POV, verifiabiility and notability. As an audience, I see a lot of improvement specifically regarding the suggestions, which includes

In December 2014 Bitnation announced it was working with Johan Nygren’s resilience.me Basic Income protocol, built on a mutual insurance-like structure!

— T2cnwH7v2m3 (talk) 18:47, 27 September 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. Black Kite (talk) 09:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conphidance[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article recreated by a SPA editor after the result of the first AfD was "soft delete". Current sourcing is either from unreliable sources, press releases, or is simply mentions of him. Searches did not turn up the type of in-depth coverage of him to show he passes WP:GNG, and he certainly doesn't pass WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - mentioned in reliable sources and has roles in prominent TV series. - Fuzheado | Talk 03:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Comment - but no "significant roles", as required to meet WP:NACTOR, and you just confirmed he doesn't meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 06:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete passing mentions and minor roles do not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Rolling Out article is not a passing mention and solely about this person and appears to be a WP:RS. Entertainment Weekly is certainly a RS and the creators of the significant TV series American Gods spend a full paragraph praising this actor. Those are enough to pass over the WP:GNG bar. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't figure out if Rolling Out is a WP:RS or not. I can't find anything that talks about their editorial policy, who publishes it, anything like that. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Responding to Fuzheado, we're not looking for mentions. We're looking for ~~in-depth~~ significant coverage. And a smattering of minor roles doesn't count for much. For example, American Gods (TV series) lists a cast of 8 main roles and 17 recurring roles. Conphidance plays Okoye, the 16th listed recurring role, and that role is not even mentioned in any of the episode summaries. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Then you are using a standard that is not consistent with policy. See WP:GNG. It says "significant coverage" and not "in-depth coverage." Therefore your argument seems to be counter to this. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated my comment, but that doesn't really change anything. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eggishorn, there seems to be enough source material out there to satisfy WP:GNG. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  08:35, 1 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) 19:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lene Grenager[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Sources are commercial listings, blogs, own site and own listing published by a society of composers. Nothing independent. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Does not meet WP:BIO fails WP:CS written as WP:PROMO--EC Racing (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only editor arguing to keep is the article's creator, who states on their user page they are a civil air patrol member, and thus have a WP:COI. This doesn't disqualify them from commenting here, but it does seem that they're too close to the subject to give a truly dispassionate evaluation. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Group, Civil Air Patrol[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/New York City Group, Civil Air Patrol

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

This article has only one reference from a site not controlled by the subject. It appears to be promotional.
The text is not encyclopedic. It does not describe why this unit is notable in a general sense. Parade participation and one article about an event in 2001 are likely not enough.
Its emphasis is on the personnel involved, not on the group.
With some work, I trust the article could be improved to be a great Wikipedia article. Rhadow (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination was placed at the article's talk page; I have copied it here verbatim, and will complete the other steps to list the debate. No comment on the merits, except that the article should probably be renamed if kept. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of finding more citations and references as we go. This group is truly historic as it is the administrative echelon of the largest city in the state and by far the most diverse city in the US. It also serves as the echelon that serves one of the first areas that Civil Air Patrol began it's services in 1941, at the high of the war. Coastal Patrols for a time were headquartered in the area that this unit commands. I urge fellow wiki writers to keep this article up and, if possible, use your experience and resources to help keep the page running. Thank YouCfuentes1421 (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to keeping the article in principle, but it does need a major overhaul to make it no longer sound like a promotional material. For example, the "Current commander" section is nothing but a resume and absolutely needs to go. Et0048 (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder WP:NCORP "As a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." Rhadow (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sole notable referenced incident (photography of 9/11) was accomplished by members of the Long Island Group, temporarily seconded by the New York unit. Rhadow (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotional; can be recreated by a neutral editor. Sandstein 10:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable chapter of national organization. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:29, 29 September 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. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blood's Voice[edit]

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

Highly advertorialized article about a YA-fantasy novel, not referenced to any reliable source coverage. The book's existence is sourced to its sales page on Amazon.com; the character content is sourced entirely to the author's own self-published content on her own website, and the critical reception is referenced entirely to amateur bloggers, not to professional reviews in reliable publications like Publishers Weekly or Kirkus or The New York Times. There's also a possible conflict of interest here, as the article was created by a WP:SPA editor who used the name of the novel's protagonist as their Wikipedia username -- although it's impossible to tell whether that points to a fan or to the author herself, it does still demonstrate that their intention was to advertise the book rather than to build an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  13:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:23, 20 September 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. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infamous (web series)[edit]

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

Probably fails WP:GNG. Article is based on primary sources. A Guy into Books (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:22, 20 September 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. The arguments weigh out. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 17:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Screen Media Films[edit]

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

No suggestion of notability Rathfelder (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. No indications of notability. Notability is not inherited. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per HighKing, article subject does not inherit (WP:NOTINHERITED) notability from other companies' films.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. No evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Bearcat (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Keep per Bythebooklibrary's improvements. I find the tone of the new additions a little bit advertorialized, but that can be dealt with through the editing process and isn't a reason to delete an article that's covered by adequate sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have re-worked the article and added some new references. Pinging Bearcat, SamHolt6, HighKing, Rathfelder to Have a second look. The article subject now passes WP:GNG. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved thank you. Happy to withdraw my proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathfelder (talk • contribs) 15:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I originally closed this discussion as Withdrawn by nominator; however since there are already differing opinions between users, I have reinstated this discussion. Pinging Rathfelder. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment Thank you Rathfelder and Bearcat. I will work at getting it less promotional. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree the article has more references, there are still no indications of notability. The references are a series of run-of-the-mill business deals, with no depth of coverage of the actual company. These references fail WP:CORPDEPTH. It doesn't matter if they "pick up the exclusive rights for" the biggest movie on the planet since notability is not inheritied. The article still fails WP:SPIP and the list of products ... sorry movies ... is the same as any other company's catalogue of products and fails since it is promotional. In order for this company to meet the requirements to pass GNG is for two references that, in turn, meet the requirements for establishing notabilty - two references that don't rely on company sources or announcements of new "products", containing in-depth information about the company. This is still clearly a Delete unless some of the Keep !voters can point to some references. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Most of the article wording is a direct copy of the first paragraph of this, so both a primary source and a WP:COPYVIO? Without that, the article would be little more than a "Selected films" list. AllyD (talk) 06:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but as it is well attributed, under WP:V's section WP:SELFPUB it is not disallowed as long as not used for Notability. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable film distribution article; sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH. The copy is highly promotional and also appears to be a copyvia. It's a "delete" all around for me. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 17:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hamish Daud[edit]

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

articles was twice dePROD without explantion. Not notable actor Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor. For the record though, articles should only ever be prodded once. If they are deprodded, even with no explanation, the article should be brought to AfD, not prodded again.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A BLPPROD-tag was removed twice (correctly) because it was placed in error (BLPPROD cannot be used when there are sources, not matter how reliable). However, since this might also indicate that deletion is not uncontroversial, I'm relisting this instead of assuming it is a case of WP:NOQUORUM.

I will allow to myself to disagree here. Articles did not have any sources beside personal profiles of the person itself. It barely constitutes as sources. BTW, it still does not have any sources at all. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant roles in Gangster, Spy in Love, My Trip My Adventure, Love You... Love You Not and Trinity, The Nekad Traveler all of which appear notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are no any sources confirming the significance of the roles. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My Trip [37]. He is the host, show has two Indonesian Choice Awards nominations. Love You, [38] shows his significance. Trinity [39], "RICHARD OH: Writer is back with two inspiring new projects" by Cynthia Webb in The Jakarta Post, 30 March 2012 shows his significance. See also "Raisa and Hamish have a lot of fans who idolize them and dream of having a spouse like them one day." from Guess what?: Raisa and Hamish break fans’ hearts. When looking at an Indonesian subject look at Indonesian sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can't be source to itself. IMDB is not reliable source, since it's community based. BTW, Indonesian artciles does not have any sources as well. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added Gangster and Spy in Love to the above list [40] [41] [42]. Another source for Trinity [43] and for Love You [44]. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tung Wah Group of Hospitals S. C. Gaw Memorial College[edit]

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

This article about a grammar school is blatantly promotional. It does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for inclusion. Even looking back at earlier non-promotional versions of the article, it has never had any references that aren't the school's own website. Without independent reliable sources, there is no evidence of notability. Deli nk (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not meet notability requirements.Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google search on "SC Gaw" [45] and Chinese name "吳祥川" [46] gives over ten pages of references, large numbers of external sources on the subject. Please do some research and have more knowledge on the subject on the web if you question the "notability" of the subject and submit the request of Afd. I contribute more time on other wikipedia projects and is not active for English Wikipedia for a long time. The number of active Hongkong wikipedians in English Wikipedia is deserting for a long time and may not have any good improvement on many subjects of Hong Kong. Anyway, there is no lack of external source for the notability requirement. I have revert the article to earlier revision and would spend some time to improve it. Afd is the last resort in Wikipedia, right? — HenryLi (Talk) 06:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, more. Some editors do not understand well on the issues of notability. According to notability guidelines,
The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search.
I wonder there are many editors doing more harm than good to the Wikipedia community. They never think of improving articles but keep finding articles to delete without any research. We all know that not every part of the world are native in English, many local sources and topics are never go into English Wikipedia. Keeping deleting these articles not only discourages local wikipedians, eliminating local Wikipedian community, it also weakening the balance and the varieties of the topics in English Wikipedia. It is very hard to writing on local topics. It is even harder to keep the local topics. It is so disguising to fight against so many Afd. — HenryLi (Talk) 09:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's sufficient notability as established by mentions in independent, reliable sources; and sufficiently verifiable information to make the inclusion of an article viable. The current state of the article can be improved but I think readers are still better off with this article as it is than without it. Deryck C. 12:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The deletion proposal is disruptive and this article can be improved. I suggest the proposer to spend time studying the deletion guidelines before proposing additional deletions. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"This article about a grammar school is blatantly promotional." => This can be fixed, not a reason for deleting the article

"It does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for inclusion." => Why not?

"Even looking back at earlier non-promotional versions of the article, it has never had any references that aren't the school's own website." => It doesn't mean that such references don't exist elsewhere

"Without independent reliable sources, there is no evidence of notability." => What about looking for such evidence, rather that suggesting a deletion?

The article at the time of nomination was totally unacceptable for Wikipedia. With the article now trimmed of its promotional content and having some sources beyond its own website, I'm still not sure about this. I realize that standards get relaxed for schools, but the sources are mainly routine coverage (directory listings, stories about several students that had notably good test results or a "Latin dancer of the college won some good prizes"). An article about a company with these types of sources and content could easily get unanimous deletes on WP:CORPDEPTH grounds. Gnome de plume (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:56, 27 September 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 Gazumping#Gazundering. The page's Revision history remains available is anyone is interested in merging content. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gazundering[edit]

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

I think this falls under WP:neo. It's a 'humorous' (per google) term that was created in the late 1980s re real estate sales. I don't think this adds anything to wp, and it certainly doesn't appear to be a unique concept. I would support a merge/rd, but I'm not sure what target would be proper. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. With Gazumping, it seems rather WP:DICTDEF to have its own article. It is a legal term this is accepted to refer to a negotiation tactic which is similar to Gazumping, but done by the other party in the opposite way (so ironically not really that similar). It is only used in context to real estate contracts. The buyer offering less than the agreed price, thereby breaking the deal is Gazundering, the seller accepting more from anther party, thereby breaking the deal is Gazumping, both words from the Yiddish gezumph meaning ‘overcharge’. Gazundering can be seen as a form of extortion, since the seller may be forced to sell at the lower price due to circumstance, especially if they have committed to other contracts on the strength of the agreement.

A Guy into Books (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is press coverage of the topic from a period of several years[47][48][49][50][51], so there may be a bit more to say about it than the current stub (one article even argues that it's a good thing[52]) and it has some notability. Whether it is better to merge or not is another question. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

otwithstanding the coverage, I'm not sure that enough can be written about it to merit an article, whereas it would significantly add to the related gazumping article. hence my !vote for merge. A Guy into Books (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gazumping#Gazundering, which is an existing article section with a very similar definition of the term. I don't agree that it's WP:NEO, as the term has been in use in the UK since the early 1990s recession, at least, and it's been used in the US since the financial crisis. Fiachra10003 (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gazumping#Gazundering per Fiachra10003. It's a real term and behavior that and has been around for decades. The redirect places it in better context for the readers. No prejudice to re-creation if an editor wants to create an article based on relaible sources. --Mark viking (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:10, 20 September 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Super Cilantro Girl[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:GNG Pontificalibus (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Pontificalibus (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Juan Felipe Herrera#Bibliography. The article is currently about a play, which isn't the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) (only very local coverage) and the play author's article no longer exists for a redirect. However, the story on which the play was based is listed in the aformentioned Bibliography, so after the content is deleted, a fresh redirect there would make sense. czar 16:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.122.171.75.98 (talk) 22:25, 26 September 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 10:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional mecha[edit]

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

It only consists of unreferenced links to other articles, so it would be better implemented as the self-maintaining Category:Fictional mecha that I recently created. As there is already somewhat of a list of notable examples in mecha, the importance of such a list is highly unclear. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Wait, are there non-fictional mecha? I want a VF-1... Jclemens (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see: Category:Individual mecha. Just don't get your hopes up for a super robot._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- completely unreferenced, and serves little navigational purpose. Zxcvbnm's category does a better job. Reyk _YO! 13:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What's the purpose of this list compared to a category? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misty Woods[edit]

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

not notable enough for WP E-Kartoffel (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO, and nor would the Ju Ju Babies.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Pontificalibus (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree, does not meet WP:MUSICBIO--EC Racing (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EC Racing (talk • contribs) 20:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:09, 20 September 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 10:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Russell[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only WP:ROUTINE sources from his hiring/leaving and some game coverage as an ice hockey coach. As coach and player, he fails WP:NHOCKEY by never participating in a high enough league and has won no major awards (individual as needed by NHOCKEY, closest is a conference title while he was an assistant) in either role. Yosemiter (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep: Truth be told, I think that Coach of the Year award from the WCHA suffices to meet NHOCKEY. Ravenswing 18:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ~~per Ravenswing. WCHA Coach of the Year award certainly appears to meet the spirit of WP:NHOCKEY #4.~~ Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC with sources like this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that. Being a conference coach of the year seems akin to being all-conference as a player and that is insufficient to meet WP:NHOCKEY. If he was the national coach of the year I think there'd be no question about his notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are 6 conference Coaches of the Year every year, and there are 6 1st-Team All-Americans every year. I'd argue that being a conference Coach of the Year is roughly the relative coaching equivalent of being named a 1st-Team All-American in any given year. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your analogy. There's one All-American first team player for each position so there should be one coach. We don't have 6 All-Americans at each position. Papaursa (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, withdrawing my vote. Ravenswing 16:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

College head coaches are a lot more notable then college players, though. Anyways, sources have now been provided above to show that Russell meets WP:GNG, so it's a moot point. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ejgreen77: Analysis of sources: 1) local Elimira paper covering local Elmira team transaction - routine. 2) St. Cloud paper wrote an article on the coach of team it is about to play on a page entirely devoted to upcoming match - routine. 3) St. Cloud paper article on the new coach of the team it is about to play - game preview is on another page of the section -routine. 4) Elmira paper covering local Elmira team hiring - routine. 5) Really short three sentence blurb about hiring at MTU - lacks significant depth. 6) Worcester news article about Worcester coach hiring - routine. 7) College hockey blog - decent depth of coverage, hard to tell reliability or independence, also reads a bit like a blog. 8) Worcester news covering Worcester hockey team -routine. In the end, I am still not sure I am seeing multiple sources that individually meet each requirement of GNG. Borderline maybe. Yosemiter (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see What is and is not routine coverage. A box score is routine coverage, a feature article is not routine coverage. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Useful, but the other essay WP:MILL might consider it routine as it is only local coverage and the sources are fully expected to cover the local happenings. Hence why I said it would be borderline. Even I have been covered in various local papers at least two times due to sports and community service (back page-type articles, I am in no way notable). Yosemiter (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of sports, WP:MILL specifically only mentions individual game coverage within the context of trying to create individual game articles (e.g."July 8 Cardinals vs. Brewers game", etc). None of the above fits into that category. Now, this is an example of what would be considered routine coverage of Russell, per both WP:ROUTINE and WP:MILL. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have had countless collegiate players achieve 1st team awards but were viewed as fails because there were not 1st or 2nd team all-american, how is this different? I suppose if you view the coaching recognition as "preeminent honors" you could build a case, but I disagree. I believe it should be national recognition to be a proper comparable to the player achievements.18abruce (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I stated above, and in agreement with 18abruce's argument, being all-conference isn't sufficient to show hockey notability for players and so it shouldn't be enough for coaches. I don't believe WP:NHOCKEY is met and I don't see the coverage to show WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:NHOCKEY and overall fails WP:GNG. --EC Racing (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 23 September 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) 19:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khalifah Whitner[edit]

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

Nothing in the article to indicate why this author is notable. Doesn't appear to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG Pontificalibus (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Pontificalibus (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a gNews search on her unique name turns up absolutely nothing. Her publisher http://kiwimperialpublishing.com/ is her own self-publishing imprint. Article appears to be mere PROMO. No WP:RS found, no plausible claim to notability, and and no notability found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just looking at the sources here they are sources by here, we would need sources by others to show that she is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 26 September 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) 19:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maksym Lavrynovych[edit]

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

fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG and WP:NOTRESUME. Nothing in this article or the sources suggest that the subject is notable enough. Domdeparis (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- basically a resume of a subject that is not encyclopedically relevant just yet. The awards listed appear to be vanity ones, and there's nothing better. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-encyclopedic resume.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:09, 21 September 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) 02:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Wilke[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I nominated this article for deletion in 2014 in the course of WP:New Pages Patrol. The outcome was a non-admin closure of "no consensus". Looking back over this, the result seems very problematic. The only keep !voter was @Brookspowell629 who, more likely than not, had conflicts of interest when creating and editing articles in 2014 related to this article. Look at their history and judge for yourself. Brookspowell629 has since become inactive. The non-admin closure also looks problematic because the consensus of the discussion, setting aside Brookspowell629's !vote, appears to be delete. More substantively, the article's subject and its sources still show no sign of meeting the notability standards. Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. , possibly speedy delete as promotional. Self-published author. Nosignificant library holdings ofany of his books. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete this page is entirely promotional and badly sourced, as most promotional pages are. Would need to be completely rewritten. A deletion discussion argument can be the same as a speedy one, and this should have been speedied per WP:G11 - it would need to be fundamentally rewritten to make this a WP article and not an ad. Jytdog (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG, as "sources" therein are from the author himself. Promotional piece. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 05:42, 21 September 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) 19:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Prasad Lamichhane[edit]

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

Non-notable subject who fails WP:DIRECTOR. Article reads like an attempted resume, and can be considered in violation of WP:PROMOTION. SamHolt6 (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had prodded the article with a similar nom statement; the prod was removed without reasoning. Subject fails WP:PRODUCER and WP:GNG. Thanks. Lourdes 04:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps some passing admin could invoke WP:BIODEL ("Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed.") than witness this being listlessly resisted. Lourdes 17:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. I can no coverage of him in reliable sources. According to his own website, he has produced two non-notable films. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in high-quality sources that are needed to write a biography of a living person. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved to Draft:Patsy's Barber Shop so that deficiencies in the article can be addressed. If they are, the article can be proposed for review in the usual way. If they are not, it will be deleted. bd2412 T 01:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patsy's Barber Shop[edit]

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

Business that fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. The article contains links and citations, but these discuss aspects of barber shops in general and not the subject business in particular. SamHolt6 (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. One article in the Times Union, and not wholly about the shop itself, isn't going to do it. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---Added 2 more sources to the original article, and I believe there are a few articles from The Metroland newspaper that ran in Albany for 25 years, though it closed it's doors in the last 2. Looking online for those articles also!---MakeCocktailsNotWar — Preceding unsigned comment added by MakeCocktailsNotWar (talk • contribs) 13:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article now mentions that it is included in the NRHP-listed Downtown Albany Historic District. Individual contributing buildings in districts sometimes do get separate articles. Unfortunately I can't see the NRHP nomination document for the district right now to see what it says about this building. The NYS historic documents site changed in the last few years, invalidating permalinks from NYS NRHP articles. Per what I myself wrote into wp:NRHPHELP#New York not too long ago, one should be able to search at this search screen to find one's way to the document, but it seems the entire www.oprhp.state.ny.us website is down right now. I suggest/request not closing this AFD too quickly, so that this source can be consulted when the website is back up. --do ncr am 15:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---Currently in the process of researching older Metroland Articles (a Alternative Newspaper in Albany for 25 years, that closed 2 years ago), and going through their archives (along with the Times Union) to find articles on Patsy's/Executive Cutters and the different owners as the Business is 87 years old (continuously)! Just wanted that to be updated so people knew, just taking time as the archives aren't exactly user friendly online! I have also been looking towards the historic nature that Gene93k mentioned above...----MakeCocktailsNotWar

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG. I can find little beyond trade listings and social media. It may have been running a bit longer than most but it has changed ownership and it's not a historic building or anything, it's just a barber's shop. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^^^The building is part of the Downtown Historic District of Albany (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downtown_Albany_Historic_District) which includes the buildings on State Street directly near the Capital Building of New York State. Also, despite changing ownership the business has been continuously open for 87 years. I've emailed the NYS NRHP inquiring about the status of the building, along with their broken search feature mentioned by doncram---MakeCocktailsNotWar — Preceding unsigned comment added by MakeCocktailsNotWar (talk • contribs) 21:46, 21 September 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 draftify Moved to Draft:JBJ (band). ansh 666 19:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JBJ (band)[edit]

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

As of yet non-notable band which fails WP:BAND. According to the article the band formed in 2017 and will officially debute on 18 October, qualifying the article for WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. The article subject also lacks the large amount of coverage needed for WP:ART. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: I agree that the article was published far too early and fails notability standards, it should be moved to a draft for the time being. Abdotorg (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystall ball, and as this band make their debut on October 18, it would make sense if we waited until then before we decide whether they have an article in Wikipedia. Vorbee (talk) 10:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per CRYSTAL and TOOSOON. They have not officially made their debut yet. ToThAc (talk) 17:21, 29 September 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 All the Light Above It Too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Johnson: 2017 Tour[edit]

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

Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All the Light Above It Too. Currently, the tour doesn't seem to have any notability outside of the album, and nothing that seems to pass WP:NTOUR, but it potentially could before it ends. menaechmi (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All the Light Above It Too, the album the tour supports. f e minist 12:29, 28 September 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) 19:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Call You Free[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Seemingly remade months after its first deletion, this page contains what is almost patent nonsense. It could well be. I cannot find any reference to its existence online. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 19:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't patent nonsense, but it could, at worst, be a hoax. I don't know a lot about Internet telephony, but I feel pretty confident that any notable Internet technological development would have sources about it that could be found on the Internet. Yet the only source that has ever been cited in this article is an article that doesn't mention "Call You Free", and I haven't found any sources on the Internet myself, either. If this isn't a hoax, it is probably non-notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This software does exist; see [53]]. But cyf.com that supported it is defunct and I cannot find independent RS to support the article. I don't see any good redirect targets, either. Hence, delete. --Mark viking (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Éliard[edit]

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

Does not satisfy musical notability. A Google search finds a great deal of primary information but no in-depth independent coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop The Rain (band)[edit]

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

There are a couple of small news articles cited here, but I don't think that it's enough coverage to meet WP:NMUSIC. agtx 20:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tranda[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Quite simply, there are no reliable sources suggesting this individual may be notable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  20:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am seeing no evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 09:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:CREATIVE & significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:02, 20 September 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) 02:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Özgür Doğruöz (singer)[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO criteria other than an unsourced claim of having "biggest hits". The article was created with the "singer" disambiguation in the title, apparently to circumvent the create protection on Özgür Doğruöz which has been deleted 5 times. According to the talk page, this article has been deleted seven times on the Turkish Wikipedia.

This might be a WP:G5 speedy deletion candidate since this version is a pared-down copy of previously deleted versions created by a banned user, but too much time has passed to make any determination about the creator of this version. Normally I would just speedy delete this as a repeatedly-created BLP, but I'll let the community decide. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - he's released 3 albums on a reasonably well known Turkish label and has this http://www.meydannet.com/haber/ozgur-dogruoz-den-yeni-muzik-albumu-29939.html but I note the Turkish wp entry was only created 17 Nisan 2017, that's April this year. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, don't know. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in the age of being able to self-publish literally anything on the internet, merely releasing music does not make one notable. Academicoffee71 (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a fairly open and shut SPI going on with the above Academicoffee71 account so disregard as a vote. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 16:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see no evidence he meets WP:GNG. I looked for Turkish news coverage and only found one piece on a pseudo-newssite that allows self-publishing for advertising uses [54] (and, oh, i see that's the article noted above). His youtube views are very low and suggest there is little to no coverage to be found.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Repeatedly deleted both here and on Turkish Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Fails to meet WP:GNG--XFhumu^Talk 19:28, 23 September 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 10:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Psyco Gundam[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A Google search failed to turn up any significant sources about its real world impact. Therefore article fails WP:GNG due to this lack of secondary sources. If there are any in books, nothing is mentioned here, as all the book references are WP:PRIMARY, such as "Gundam: The Official Guide" (key word is "official"). _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 16:49, 20 September 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 Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 17:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Z Gundam[edit]

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

A search for sources did not find any sources of note, it fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT, and is written in in-universe style. An article that is more fitting for Wikia, but is unencyclopedic for Wikipedia. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam. Ifnord (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 16:49, 20 September 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Phillips (Youtuber)[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:SIGCOV, article includes 2 third party sources and cursory search turns up only a few more ([55] [56] [57]) which are mostly about how Phillips gets paid substantial money to use/mention products in his videos. All other sources are primary sources by the subject including social media and videos. Also may not meet WP:ENT criteria. PROD was removed by page creator without comment. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 16:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC); edited 16:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 16:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 16:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. -Roxy the dog. bark 07:29, 23 September 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) 19:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Phillips[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. My searches did not turn up any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources of the type required to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just not finding online sources to indicate passing WP:GNG. I would not object to userfy if the article creator wants to take custody of the article, notability could be achieved in the future.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability requirements for football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:58, 27 September 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) 19:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Madavana[edit]

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

Unsourced article on an intersection w/o any claim of notability, other than perhaps being the only intersection with a traffic light. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Madavana is the only junction with traffic signals. I wonder if this is true? With no proof I am leaning delete. 22:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is evidently clear that Madavana is, by an unbelievably long shot, NOT the only intersection with traffic lights. Additionally, the only source provided is internal, and I see no good place to redirect this page to. ToThAc (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A perfectly ordinary road junction, without any notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:23, 27 September 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, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Smith (American academic)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG all the sources are primary sources or self published. Domdeparis (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The relevant guidelines would appear to be WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. Regarding the latter, his GS h-index of 29 appears respectable, although I am not the one to judge what is above-average performance in the legal field. In addition, I fairly quickly turned up two reviews of one of his books (Courts and the Poor, 1991), which suggests that a keep on the "multiple independent reviews" clause might be defensible. Also, he is coauthor on a textbook that has apparently gone through 15 editions, with a 16th on the way (ISBN 978-1337558907), which — even with the proliferation of editions that textbook publishers love — sounds like a decent achievement. XOR'easter (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks for digging out the GS record. citations give clear pass of WP:Prof#C1 at least. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Nomination withdrawn thanks for finding that I didn't find those myself given his very common name I think. I'll make a bigger effort next time. If someone could close this for me I would be grateful as I am on my smart phone today. Domdeparis (talk) 05:09, 21 September 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) 19:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two Stars for Peace solution[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable book with no mention in WP:RS sources.The sources that used in the article doesn't mention the book or even the book idea so the whole article seems to be one big WP:OR essay Shrike (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shrike (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shrike (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shrike (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the book a sufficient source, no need for another article for a non-notable subtopic.GreyShark (dibra) 05:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NBOOK per sourcing in article and in a quick BEFORE I was unable to find reviews of the book.Icewhiz (talk) 07:34, 25 September 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) 19:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Romanovskij[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree fails WP:GNG lack WP:CS--EC Racing (talk) 15:19, 20 September 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) 15:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication the article meets any of our notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Margaritaville[edit]

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

Article about a satellite radio station, with no properly sourced indication of passing WP:NMEDIA. SiriusXM channels are not automatically presumed notable just because they exist, but must show enough reliable source coverage about them in media to clear WP:GNG -- but the only references shown here at all are SiriusXM's own primary source press releases and channel lineup brochures. Both NMEDIA and WP:OUTCOMES specify that satellite radio stations only get their own articles if they can be properly sourced as notable, and are not automatically entitled to have standalone articles if they're referenced exclusively to primary sources. Redirect to a related topic would also be acceptable, but I can see several different possible redirect targets -- the SiriusXM channel list, Jimmy Buffett, the "merchandising" section of Margaritaville -- and don't know which one to propose. Bearcat (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have expanded the article with the help of several references. Some coverage - especially pertaining to its history before Sirius - exists behind paywalls, but with the additions there should now be enough properly sourced material to support a standalone article. gongshow talk 07:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per expansion above. Seems to meet the level of notability, and different from the proposed merge topic. Sadads (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also pageviews suggest that the article is of public interest, Sadads (talk) 04:15, 23 September 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 10:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Witching hour[edit]

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

Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 13:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bobherry, did you intend on nominating this for deletion with no rationale? Primefac (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

N Bobherry Talk Edits 14:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bobherry, sorry, but you really should know by now that you cannot give a one-letter AFD rationale, even if it is wikilinked. Primefac (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A dictionary definition, the phrase can be traced back to an eighteenth century poem I believe. But beyond this brief etymology and widespread use in fiction I don't see an encyclopedia article here. Although not relevant to this AfD, most of the article is currently inaccurate in putting the hour at 3am rather than midnight, which is not surprising given that it's poorly sourced.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there was also a chap called bill who wrote of it a bit earlier in hammie - "Tis now the very witching time of night, (380) When churchyards yawn and hell itself breathes out Contagion to this world: now could I drink hot blood, And do such bitter business as the day ..." Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and then charlie referred to bill's words in The Old Curiosity Shop. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move Witching Hour (disambiguation) to that namespace. The disambiguation page could link to english folklore instead, and have a bit of text mentioning it._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:22, 23 September 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) 02:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Rio[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO at this moment. Darreg (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

promotional article with unreliable sources lacking in significant coverage and having a provable possibility of WP:COI. Article contains unverifiable and non encyclopaedic contents too.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of the subject doesn't show the subject being discussed in reliable sources. Majority of the sources in the article are promotional links meant to promote the artist's releases. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 07:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG does not meet WP:MUSICBIO and written as WP:PROMO--EC Racing (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional material of a non-notable artiste. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear that the subject doesn't meet our notability guidelines currently —SpacemanSpiff 07:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Ahad IPS[edit]

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

this article fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. All the articles are about his appointment and with the exception of a local puff piece. His rank is at best the equivalent to a Colonel according to Superintendent of police (India) and as per WP:MILPEOPLE is not presumed notable. Domdeparis (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable civil servant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as his rank falls in the list of Indian order of precedence. Currently not all the functionaries and officials listed in the Indian order of precedence have dedicated Wikipedia page. This is only because there are less number of editors in India compared to other developed countries. Take for example USA, Almost all the officials present in United States order of precedence have entry in Wikipedia. --Amoniasqund (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see superintendent of police in the Indian order of precedence. In the list there is only 1 mention of a police officer and that is "Director-General, Central Reserve Police Force" at the second lowest level, are superintendents of police at this rank? The lowest military rank is Major General or a 2 star general which is at least 2 ranks above this person if one believes Superintendent of police (India). In the American order of precedence there are no police officers and the lowest Military rank is 3 star general which is a Lt General. I don't understand the reasoning behind your keep !vote can you elaborate please? Domdeparis (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is a IPS , a member of All India Services, Union Public Service Commission. Note that he is a Deputy commissioner of Police and his rank is of Senior Superintendent of police not Superintendent of police. Please refer Ranks in law enforcement in India. --Amoniasqund (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So is this rank in the list of Indian order of precedence as you claim? Domdeparis (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Members of Union Public Service Commission are part of Indian order of precedence.--Amoniasqund (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Amoniasqund:, @Domdeparis: Members of UPSC refers to the actual members of UPSC, who are appointed by the President as per article 315 of Constitution of India, members are usually academicians and retired civil servants. IAS/IPS/IFos officers are recruited by UPSC, they're not the members of UPSC. Also, by the by, Secretary of R&AW in the Cabinet Secretariat (placed 23rd on Indian Order of Precedence), Directors-General of Central Armed Police Forces (BSF, CRPF, CISF etc.), Director of CBI, Director of IB and Director-General of NIA (placed 25th on Indian Order of Precedence) are IPS officers (hence, also police officers), so there's more than one police rank on Indian Order of Precedence. Additionally, Addl. Secy. to GoI (placed 25th on Indian Order of Precedence), and Jt. Secy. to GoI (placed 26th on Indian Order of Precedence) are considered analogous to Director-General/Additional-Director General and Inspector-General respectively.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 14:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment as he is been quoted or mentioned in number of prominent newspapers of India. Hence this article passes the Basic criteria for the notability. I will contest with the references later with list of his named mentioned by the notable sources in last one month.--Amoniasqund (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment as I was planning add the encyclopedic entries for other IPS officers of same ranking as well as the higher ranking ones. Removal of this article translates that all these entries will also be considered as not notable.--Amoniasqund (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can only !vote once and as you wrote the article I'm afraid it doesn't really bear much weight unless you reply to the nominator's remarks or provide more sources and information about the subject. Basic criteria states significant coverage and the sources in this article are WP:ROUTINE coverage announcing his appointment. You can by all means add other articles as each article is judged on its own merits. The rank is only an indicator of notability (at least in the military) all articles have to meet WP:GNG. Domdeparis (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for multiple voting. Following are some references of him other than coverage announcing his appointment. Some references have his quotes and opinions and some just mentions him. 2009 [58] 2011 [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] 2012 [64] [65] [66] 2014 [67] [68] 2015 [69] [70] [71] 2016 [72] [73] [74] August 2017 [75] [76] [77] [78] September 2017 [79] [80] [81]

Note that the Kannada language newspapers quote or mention him more than that of English Dailies. Following are some Kannada references. [82] [83] [84] [85]

Also note that the above lists are not exhaustive. I understand that one of the sources cited looks like a puff piece, will remove it. --Amoniasqund (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (for now): I tried checking published IPS Civil List as per MHA and Karnataka Administrative Reforms Department (Karnataka Police) data, and I couldn't find any match for Abdul Ahad. Chances are that he's been recently promoted from State Police Service. But, if anyone else wants to try, be my guest.
Links - Here and here.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 15:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @SshibumXZ: I was spectacularly wrong about the members of UPSC. I apologize for my ignorance. Also you are right about him being recently promoted.[86] You can find him in this list.--Amoniasqund (talk) 19:00, 23 September 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) 19:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Villalba Segarra[edit]

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

Non-notable person. References are mentions-in-passing at best or inclusions in lists of other questionably notable young entrepreneurs. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The references do not establish notability, merely his existence, and in passing at that. Several references fail RS. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:53, 23 September 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. ansh 666 09:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 1757 Heatwave[edit]

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

Can't really find coverage of this topic. Even if I could, it's doubtful that this event would be notable enough to warrant an article. Wikipedia is not a database for previous years weather. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nobody is writing about this particular heatwave because it's not notable, even if there was a heatwave at that time and place. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ ~~Neutral~~ Keep. Article need improvement. 1757 was the hottest recorded summer until 2003 (A 1 in 500 years event) as may be seen in this wapo source [87]. We do have an article on 2003 European heat wave. We have other period weather record events, eg Great Frost of 1709. From a quick before there are quite a few sources on 1757. The article is 1 day old, give the creator time for this notable subject, deletion is not cleanup.Icewhiz (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the "quite a few sources" to which you refer? I searched and found nothing of substance. Also, WP:REALPROBLEM. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC) Struck vote due to article state.Icewhiz (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize this was AFDed within an hour of creation? unfinished houses, indeed. Some sources: [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102].Icewhiz (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to add in the sources and fix the article go for it. Otherwise it needs to either be deleted or moved to a draft page and go through AfC. Clear case of WP:REALPROBLEM as mentioned before. It shouldn't have gone in the mainspace without sourcing or better context. There's sources like AfC for a reason. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One sentence, unreferenced, and a huge table of entirely uncontextualized raw primary data is not what makes an acceptable Wikipedia article. Somebody needs to write a proper article, describing the subject, providing context, demonstrating its notability with references to substantial coverage (someone needs to have written specifically about the 1757 heat wave, not just mentioned it in passing as appears to be the case with your long list of citations), and removing the raw data, or I am going to vote to delete as well. Agricolae (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC) No attempt at improvement in the interim, so Delete. Agricolae (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the article creator (and it seems this is his sole contribution) isn't making any more changes, and the article is in a sad state, and I'm not taking this particular article up for improvement (not my typical field) - I am withdrawing my vote. I do think the subject is notable, but it needs work - willing to change my vote if someone does a HEY.Icewhiz (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Modified vote above to K, per user:Milowent's WP:HEY.Icewhiz (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Expand into a proper article, or rather keep but tag for that. If this was the hottest month until 2003, it is noteworthy, but it needs considerably more context. This is not a case where an inadequate article requires TNT. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The links posted by Icewhiz convince me a suitable article can be written on a notable subject here, let's just work on it; sort of reminds me of the Brescia explosion of 1769, which when I ran across the subject, was quite surprised did not have an article. It is harder, but writing about 18th century events like this is definitely feasible. The article should be moved to something with "heat wave" in the title, not "Heatwave", after closure.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've enjoyed spending some time on this, fascinating stuff. So I've added some text and references. Someone with better French skills than I could also add sources about the "canicule" of 1757. And this is pretty cool -- "canicule", the French word for heat wave, derives from the Latin "canis" for dog, i.e., dog days, because the Greeks and Romans noticed that Sirius, the Dog Star, appears at the hottest time of the year. I never knew that, I just always assumed the phrase had to do with dogs panting on hot days!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If the article was in the sorry state it was in before Milowent came along, I would have voted delete. However, they have created an entry that is actually useful to the encyclopedia and demonstrates the noteworthiness of the topic.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TheGracefulSlick! It was fun to research. When people can write whole books about the summer of 1816, I figured I could find some nuggets.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets GNG per a source review. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:09, 22 September 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. ansh 666 19:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joan O'Hagan[edit]

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

I have had a good look at the sources and searched the web and can only find local interest stories about this author. She fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Domdeparis (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I emphatically oppose the deletion of this article, which would be outrageous, callous, mean-spirited, and deeply disrespectful to this author of five books, who finished the last book, which was praised in a literary journal, on her death bed. That she fails WP:NAUTHOR is absurd: those who take the time to read the two cited journalistic articles--"local interest" only in that they were appropriately published in the country of her death--learn that she satisfies both "1." (regarded as an important figure by both a theologian and notable classics professor) and "2." (originated a new concept in her treatment of St. Jerome, seen through a new literary prism). She was not only a writer but also a scholar (with a rare-in-these-times classical background), with her last book having a forward by a Classics professor. Matthew David González 13:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

And I object emphatically to being called callous mean-spirited and disrespectful. Try and calm your self-righteous anger which does not have its place her and read this as well WP:NPA because making accusations about my personal behaviour without proof is a personal attack. Wikipedia is not a place to pay hommage to people but an encyclopedia. Please read WP:NOTMEMORIAL. There is nothing callous mean-spirited or disrespectful in saying that someone is not notable enough to have a page on wikipedia. The problem is that this page has been created by someone who's username is the same as her daughter's and I would imagine that if someone told me after the death of my mother that she is not a notable author I would be upset hence your comment I imagine. But this is one of the reasons why conflict of interest editing is so strongly discouraged. I do not know this woman I have never heard of her and have never read her books but I am a new pages reviewer and I have the thankless task of sifting through articles and trying to analyse their noteworthiness by judging the sources and searching for more. Your arguments for notability do not hold water I'm afraid. The article in the telegraph says at the top "News, local, North shore times" and it is a moving human interest story but it doesn't help to prove she meets the criteria. You have cherry-picked the criteria that say 1: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. This requires proof that she is widely cited. 2.The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. This requires sources that explain how her book is considered as a significant new concept and not just your personal opinion. Having a ~~forward~~ foreword written by a classics professor is not a proof of notability but proof that a classics professor was willing to write a ~~forward~~ foreword. And I would also like to point out that some of her books (notably the last) are published by an independent publishing company [103] run by none other than her daughter and having as proof reader the famous classics professor of whom you speak so highly. This article looks very much like an attempt at promotion for gain from the subject's close acquaintances. Domdeparis (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly written as WP:PROMO by WP:COI editor Deniseohagan fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:NAUTHOR--EC Racing (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator and hisher well thought out paragraph. VViking_TalkEdits 15:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: obviously the COI is a real issue, as is the somewhat sparse library holdings...but three of her books appear to have been published by Doubleday, whatever it might be calling itself. Me, I suspect labeling this as COI and trimming it might make better sense than nuking it, for now. Dunno. Anmccaff (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just having had 3 books published by a reputable publishing house is not sufficient to pass WP:NAUTHOR, if the books had been well received then there should be sources out there that proves she meets WP:GNG. I could find none. Domdeparis (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't have a dog in this fight. I removed the PROD based on THIS ARTICLE, which absolutely counts one towards GNG and makes this the sort of deletion nomination that needs AfD discussion rather than being shunted off to the dark alleyway of PROD to be silently killed... Carrite (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, i have just made a pot of Russian Caravan tea reflecting the robustness of this discussion Coolabahapple (talk) 08:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what that means but it sounds very soothing! Enjoy!! Domdeparis (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her book Death and a Madonna seems to have been published by legitimate publishers in Australia (Sun), the UK (Macmillan) and the US (Doubleday) according to this, and there's a review of it in the Canberra Times here. And I only looked for 30 seconds, presumably there's more out there (perhaps not on the internet too).Boneymau (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Might wanna pass that page on to any Eric Bogle fans you know, too; look just below the article on the left. On a more serious note, though, Trove has to be watched carefully - not because it's bad, but because it's too damned good. It drags up stuff from surprisingly obscure little papers, and can thus get a multiplier effect with wire service stuff, magnifying notability. That said, I wish there was a decent equivalent here and in Canada, and that the Brit version were free.... Anmccaff (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree about Trove (at least for content before the mid-1950s which is out of copyright), but just for the record the Canberra Times is not an obscure little paper. My vote is more of a Weak keep too.Boneymau (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; I didn't meant to imply that; just a general comment on Trove. Anmccaff (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on the Canberra Times review. We're known by the company we keep, and she's in there Wambaugh, Gillian Linscott. and Louis L'Amour. Yeah, a local, but that's only mentioned in passing; the reviewer obviously sees them all as of a type in certain ways. It's gonna need a lot of cleanup, obviously. Anmccaff (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi the Canberra times article is a very short review of a book she wrote and not in depth coverage of her as a person. So the source can't be counted towards either her as a person as per GNG and would not meet the criteria as a source for one of her books. For me this does not means she meets the criteria. And again being a published author does not give her an automatic pass on GNG especially just for 3 books (the others are self published). Please do not forget that notability is not inherited so the company that you keep doesn't make you notable. Domdeparis (talk) 05:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the company you keep doesn't make you notable, but the company others keep you in does. The review obviously suggests that, to a contemporaneous Canberran, she was seen as similar to the other authors, with no explanations needed any more than for Wambaugh.

Now I have deep personal disagreement with Wiki's conceit that notability is eternal, but she seems to have been notable then and there. Anmccaff (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She passes WP:AUTHOR if she has created works that have been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The Canberra Times review, albeit short, is one. If you look up Google Books, there's mention of her and her works in various sources that sound credible like Cambridge Guide to Cicero (2013) and Twentieth-century Crime and Mystery Writers (1991). These are minor mentions but it adds up. Boneymau (talk) 05:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can gather Twentieth-century Crime and Mystery Writers is a Macmillan publication (her publisher) and lists over 600 writers. That might not be enough. Domdeparis (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, here are some reviews/awards for Jerome and his Women - "Rosie Award shortlist announced" - on the shortlist of the Institute of Professional Editors Rosanne Fitzgibbon Editorial Award, New South Wales Writers' Centre: "Book Review: Jerome and His Women by Joan O’Hagan" - "That’s the twin gift of Jerome and His Women: it is an insight into extraordinary times and people, and into a talented researcher and writer.", Historical Novel Society: "Jerome & His Women" - "The Vulgate of Jerome was one of the most pivotal and important religious documents in the history of Christianity, and O’Hagan gives her readers a fascinating look at the man behind that controversial masterpiece.", Literature & Aesthetics: "Book Reviews" - "Jerome & His Women is a meticulously researched and well informed novel that re-creates—in vivid detail—a crucial period in the history of Western Christianity, and the men and women who shaped it.", The Swag: "Book and Film Reviews: A woman's view of St Jerome" (require subsciption), 2016 Paris Book Festival: Honorable mention and on Table of Honor, 2016 New York Book Festival: "2016 New York Book Festival Winners - Spiritual/Religious: Honorable Mention", with this much it meets WP:NBOOK for a seperate article; with her book A Roman Death: Kirkus Reviews: "A Roman Death (star review)" - "Despite its slow start, sporadically pedantic air, and rather feeble mystery, this is an absorbing story, with fully drawn characters, a fascinating place and period, all given vibrant life in the author's best work so far.", Classical World: "Fictional Rome: Historical Novels in the Classroom" - "Two groups of novels, with some overlap, demand special notice: .. (2) the murder mysteries centered on Cicero court cases (real or fabricated) of Saylor, O' Hagan, and the Wagners. .. If you move on then to read O'Hagan's A Roman Death, you can examine the truth behind Cicero's defense of Helvia on a charge of poisoning ..", Kirkus also reviewed Death and a Madonna - "Few surprises, little drama, and no strongly appealing people amid the large cast--but the posh expatriate scene is sketched with tart edge, and the art-world/art-history textures add a bit of richness to this light, mildly ironic diversion.", and Against the Grain - "The overpopulated plot, full of sometimes hackneyed twists and turns, is unconvincing, but a likable, unheroic Duquesne, the clearly written scientific lore, and a colorful Australian scene make this a worthwhile diversion.", plus Library Journal - "A low-key, lightweight procedural with rural flavor, picturesque characters, and narrative wit.". Coolabahapple (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Death and a Madonna was also reviewed by Katherine England in the Advertiser on 9 January 1988 Unlikeable Suspects Make For a Rather Pedestrian Whodunit. She also appears in John Loder, Australian Crime Fiction A Bibliography 1857-1993 (1994) and Margaret C. Murphy, Women Writers and Australia (1988). These could be check to see if there is any depth of coverage. Financial Times also has a paragraph long review of Death and a Madonna in 27 December 1986. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because reviews and sources other editors have found. and WP:HEY, I have reliably sourced the details of the bio. Somebody should add those reviews to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sacramento Rush (women's football)[edit]

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

I am finding no sources, WP:ROUTINE or otherwise that this team ever played or even existed (it was probably announced and deleted, but I found no evidence they ever played in the WFA). Falls far below the requirements of WP:GNG. Even the records from the on WP (which I know is not reliable) for the season records from 2010, 2011, and 2012 for the teams that played and the Rush is not among them. Yosemiter (talk) 12:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I could only find one WP:ROUTINE source. Definitely fails WP:GNG. EMachine03 (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete unable to find suitable online sources to pass WP:GNG. Anyone else? Others have been known to be better at uncovering sources than me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hmlarson (talk) 02:10, 23 September 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) 19:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kaone Kario[edit]

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

At best this article is WP:ONEEVENT Had to remove major chunks of the article that were nothing but fluff and peacock statements about the subject. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just puff. Rathfelder (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO written as WP:PROMO and possible editor with WP:COI--EC Racing (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete Fails WP:BIO. Not enough coverage in WP:RS--XFhumu^Talk 20:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being the model for one company for a promotion is not enough for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 25 September 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) 19:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Navid Hadzaad[edit]

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

No relevance for Wikipedia - there are dozens of product leaders at Amazon and it seems like GoButler/Angel.ai has not even survived as a startup for two years. The "acquisition" by Amazon has been officially denied by an Amazon spokesperson according to TechCrunch (https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/20/angel-ai-a-company-that-builds-chat-bots-acqui-hired-by-amazon/). DonJusto123 (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO written as WP:PROMO and lacks WP:CS in areas of personal information.--EC Racing (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete run-of-the mill technology figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 27 September 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) 02:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Nazario Lubega[edit]

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

Newly created in mainspace after AfC submission was declined. Subject does not meet the notability criteria for actors; has had one role, not significant roles in multiple notable films. Mduvekot (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR. -- Dane ^talk 18:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree fails WP:NACTOR lacks WP:CS--EC Racing (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one role in a film is almost never enough to make one notable, and this film/role combination clearly is not one of the extremely rare exceptions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 23 September 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) 19:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alvee[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet criteria for WP:MUSICBIO. Sources cited simply contain statements made by the subject himself, such as "Alvee said that he has been signed with Ashikur Rahman as a Brand Ambassador of the label called 'EDM Producers Of BD." I'm no expert on Bangladeshi music so I'll withdraw if anyone has better luck finding sources for notability. PureRED | talk to me | 14:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The cited sources fall into two categories: download sites (pagalworld.me, All Indian DJ's Club, djdhoom.in, amazon.com, and djhungama.in), and news sites (Dhaka Tribune, The Daily Observer, BNN online 24). The download sites do nothing to support notability. The three news sites repeat almost word for word what appears to be a single press release. Searches of the usual types found no significant coverage of this Alvee in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Per source searches, the subject has received some coverage (e.g. [104], [105]), but not enough to warrant an article at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 20 September 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. ansh 666 19:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

India under-19 cricket team in England in 2017[edit]

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

Per previous consensus on a very similar article that fails to meet the notability threshold for cricket. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as the matches are not first-class and, therefore, the tour fails WP:CRIN. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that to delete this article because the page creator of the article India under-19 cricket team in England in 2017 has provided the scorecard of the first ODI match between India and Australia [106]. On the other hand, I assume that the article may be created due to patriotism. Abishe (talk) 09:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete U-19 cricket tours aren't notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:44, 24 September 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) 19:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kezia Noble[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a blogger / occasional soundbite about how to increase men's chances of dating women successfully. The article was created by a sock (but before the sockmaster was blocked, so not eligible for WP:CSD#G5) and originally declined at AfC by SwisterTwister and Alpha Monarch [107], before having the AfC template scrubbed and being moved into mainspace. A search for sources brings up either tabloid journalism, or things she's written - but as far as mainstream broadsheet coverage goes, not a sausage. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete WP:GNG does not meet WP:BIO or meet WP:CS--EC Racing (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This personality is meets notability requirements. Said person is clearly notable on YouTube as well as other areas.--INDIAN REVERTER (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: INDIAN REVERTER (talk · contribs) is now indefinitely blocked Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing more than a thinly-veiled advertisement. Oh, and being "notable on YouTube" doesn't mean anything. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 22:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be PROMO for this person's business. Article created by now-blocked SPA that was briefly active in 2015. Article doesn't seem much different than the one deleted in 1st AfD in 2010. Agricola44 (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete books are a dime a dozen, not all writers are notable, and nothing shows she is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 26 September 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) 19:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Balone[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG his notoriety was very localised. Domdeparis (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:CRIME overall fails WP:BIO and written as WP:PROMO. --EC Racing (talk) 19:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete sadly murdering 3 people is far too common to make someone notable. The Nov, 5, 2013 barbershop murderer in Detroit killed 8 people at once, in a week in which the city saw 15 deaths, and I doubt you could find any mention to either of these facts in either Wikipedia or any news source outside of Detroit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:05, 23 September 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. ansh 666 19:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TestLodge[edit]

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

~~PROD removed by an anonymous user without comment. The concern was: "Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSOFT, lacks even a claim of significance." Rentier (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

The company's claim of significance is having received a single, non-notable, local award. Most of the sources are WP:SPIP, some are unreliable and some are self-published. There is no indication of reliable independent in-depth coverage demanded by WP:CORPDEPTH. Rentier (talk) 10:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CorpDepth and GNG. Just mentions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article on a company. The provided sources include local coverage, primary and passing mentions, sufficient to verify this as a firm going about its business, but neither these nor the non-notable award demonstrate encyclopaedic notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough reliable sources to pass GNG. ToThAc (talk) 17:19, 29 September 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 A Bloom of Bones. ansh 666 19:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Morris Jones[edit]

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

Fails both GNG and WP:AUTHOR. There is a non-trivial mention from Field and Stream, but it mostly concerns a single work of the author and not the author himself. The other refs are from unreliable sources or the author's own website. AlexEng^(TALK) 06:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WP: Author... The author is "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" and thus the entry conforms to WP: Author standards. Particularly within the literary community in the Northern Rockies, he is cited and discussed. From a quick google.... http://billingsgazette.com/entertainment/community/anthology-featuring-montana-writers-supports-quist-public-lands/article_fd2eb56f-6cd7-5bec-baad-b55a33c2736f.html http://www.hcn.org/issues/48.19/recommended-reading-to-take-you-into-the-next-year https://livelytimes.com/2017/03/allen-morris-jones-bloom-bones/ http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/life/my-montana/2017/01/05/garfield-co-murder-unearthed-new-novel/96217086/ Since page was created, author received a 2016 "Montana Book Award: Honor Book" citation from the Montana Librarian's Association. http://www.montanabookaward.org/index.php/award-winners/93-2016 Author contributed to High Desert Journal's "What is the West" series: https://www.highdesertjournal.com/what-is-the-west Author radio interview: https://beta.prx.org/stories/193190

Re: WP: Author.... "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." See above reference to Field and Stream which discusses a cited and respected theory of hunting ethics. Search Google books for "A Quiet Place of Violence" (617 results, many of them citations from other scholars / authors)

Re: GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject..." In addition to published work (two novels, two anthologies, countless magazine articles), author is Editor-in-chief of the magazine Big Sky Journal, and has thus received, and continues to receive, significant coverage. He is central to the literary community in the Rocky Mountain West. http://bigskyjournal.com/ http://bigskyjournal.com/about A recent profile / interview in the magazine Montana Quarterly... http://www.allenmorrisjones.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Montana-Quarterly-Interview.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montana Reader (talk • contribs) 15:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources are not indepdent enough of the subject to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete written as WP:PROMO possible WP:COI with editor Montana Reader fails WP:AUTHOR and also fails overall WP:BIO andWP:GNG --EC Racing (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, have created an article on A Bloom of Bones, that meets WP:NBOOK with numerous sources, this could be a redirect target for Jones with a couple of sentences added on him. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A Bloom of Bones. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone wants this userfied pending a merge with Etannibi Alemika, please let me know Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Alemika[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet the criteria for WP:PROF despite the lead defining her as an educator and does not meet the GNG criteria. the article also says she practises human rights law but there are no mentions of any cases in which she has been involved. it also says she mentors others but there is no proof description of her mentoring in this article. there are claims that she served on a senate committee but the only reference to this is in a primary source and when I try to find a reference about this committee on the web I draw a blank all excepting this person's biography here and there. The committee is not mentioned on the senate web site here. The sources include 1 puff piece in a Nigerian magazine and 1 interview written in The Guardian rewritten word for word in latestnigeriannews and as per WP:INTERVIEW this kind of interview where the journalist poses no questions at all and just prints what the subject says about herself are not useful in proving notability as it is a primary source as such. 1 source solely about her husband. 1 source that simply mentions that she and 16 other people were promoted from reader to professor. The rest of the sources are just proof that she has been invited to speak at various conferences and as such these are primary sources. So in reality there is one secondary source which is a puff piece in a style lifestyle magazine. For me this means that she does not meet GNG. Domdeparis (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. --EC Racing (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Google Scholar brings up results to meet WP:PROF. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably referring to her husband, who was also a professor in the same university, she is not on Google scholar, which is a sign of non-notability to me. No matter the digital divide in Africa, if you have done research in reputable journals that is making waves, you will definitely have scholarly mentions from Google scholar. Academic notability is very easy to determine, because it is hardly affected by bias. Darreg (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oluwa2Chainz: Please could you strike-through your vote if you have changed your mind on the notability of the subject? This will make consensus clearer and more obvious for the closing admin. Or do you still consider the subject notable? Darreg (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I initially wanted to vote keep, until I discovered that Emily Alemika was different from Etannibi Alemika (who is actually her husband and passes both WP:GNG and WP:SCHOLAR). Per WP:NOTINHERITED it has no basis in determining the notability of her, if there was an article for Etannibi Alemika, I would have suggested this article be summarized to a section in it, but that is not the case so I'm still concluding my findings on her. Presenting leaning towards deletion though. Darreg (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She is actually on google scholar here but there are very few citations of her work and most are works by her husband or others where she appears as co-author. There is only one paper that she is the sole author of that has been cited 3 times. I am not really sure if this is enough to be considered as "widely cited" I must admit I am not really au fait with google scholar. Domdeparis (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete she does not appear to be notable as an academic. Her husband does appear to be notable, so I would hope this discussion causes someone to create an article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well I decided to be bold, so I created the article on Etannibi Alemika. It needs a lot of work, but it has two sources, although I know there are more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 23 September 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. Procedural outcome.DRV is the right way. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 17:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AKD Group[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete I'm aware that it was recently nominated but only two participants + nom commented and none rebutted the argument put forward by the nom. For example, it may have subsidiaries but notability is not inherited - perhaps the subsidiary's notability might pass the criteria but that does not confer notability on the parent company. There are no indications that "AKD Group" is notable. References provided fail the criteria for notability and/or are not intellectually independent. Difficult to understand why previous AfD was closed as a "Keep" .... -- HighKing⁺⁺ 09:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as company or group clearly fails WP:CORPDEPTH and also not notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. Greenbörg (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per recently concluded AfD nomination. 'Notability is not inherited', doesn't apply here and WP doesn't say anything about reverse inheritance. Almost every headline on Alphabet Inc. carries Google's name yet we have that article. Sources were already provided in previous AfD. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep and comment Umm, I am not sure what the purpose of this AfD is? It appears frivolous, knowing the prior nomination which was open to discussion for a reasonable period, and was closed only days before the 2nd. In any case, WP:DRV hasn't been correctly followed which outlines the process, so I'm going to have to conclude with a procedural keep. Mar4d (talk) 13:05, 23 September 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) 19:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Stull[edit]

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

Artist with insufficient representations in collections. Legacypac (talk) 09:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ——Chalk19 (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are inadequate to establish notability. Very little coverage availbale that is in depth and independent. Much of the article lacks sources. Looks like a promo piece.198.58.170.90 (talk) 05:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nomination. He isn't notable yet; maybe some time in the future if his work to come gets adequate attention. ——Chalk19 (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HYCM[edit]

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

No real demonstration of notability. Doubtful notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Updated the article with more reliable sources from Forbes, BusinessWire, and Finance Magnates as suggested above. NoMoreHate (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG have enough coverage and is sourced well Chrisswill (talk) 09:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing here utterly fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND, and is very run-of-the-mill. The Forbes sourcing is from a contributor: i.e. someone who is not on their editorial staff and uses the Forbes platform to publish their blog entries. That doesn't count as a reliable source. BusinessWire looks to be a reprint of some press release of some sort, which would fail WP:ORGIND, and the Finance Magnate entry is simply a run of the mill announcement, which wouldn't be considered towards notability per WP:CORPDEPTH. There's nothing to see here. Rather boring Forex company. If you don't buy the notability argument, look at WP:NOT: this is a promotional directory entry. Both of which are enough for deletion even if the GNG is met (which it isn't). See WP:N and WP:DEL14 on the NOT point. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess everything is boring if it's different from someone's area of expertise. You can read the BIO of the Forbes editor anyway, I have added new sources from a book, academia and their charitable work. I think HYCM is well known within the industry and recognized internationally. NoMoreHate (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter what the Forbes contributor's background was. The fact is that it was not written by a staff writer under strict editorial oversight, but by one of their contributors using their online blogging platform. That doesn't count as an RS for the purposes of notability. The sourcing you added was not about the company,but about its founder and awards received by that person. It might be an argument for them having an article (I'm not sure), but it doesn't contribute to the company's notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A number of the article's sources lack depth (WP:CORPDEPTH) and only mention employees of the company or charitable contributions, both of which subjects carry their own notability which is not inherited by the subject company. Probably fails WP:PROMOTION as the current article serves to promote certain aspects of the company.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely promotional, fails WP:SPIP, no indications of notability. References fail the criteria for establishing notability as they are either PRIMARY sources (or entirely based on PRIMARY sources such as PR or company announcements) or mentions-in-passing. A common misunderstanding frequently encountered at AfD and repeated here is that if an "independent" source publishes an article, it meets the criteria for notability. This is not the case. A source may be "independent" and print a company announcement. The article itself must be "intellectually independent" - simply publishing a company announcement with no independent opinion or analysis fails the criteria for establishing notability. Not one of the references here meet the criteria and is only indicative of a functioning marketing department at the company. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've decided to make an entry into this discussion, primarily because this page exhibits a clearly notable company that people will no doubt source good information from. As for WP:CORPDEPTH , I can see that the page goes into necessary detail to establish the basics to satisfy the underlying principles, but does not warrant deletion. While doing some research on what and what not satisfied WP:CORPDEPTH, I found an interesting list that a few people on this thread are failing to recognize. Here are a few examples of pages that do not satisfy its requirements:

"Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: sources that simply report meeting times, shopping hours or event schedules, the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories, inclusion in lists of similar organizations, the season schedule or final score from sporting events, routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued, routine notices of facility openings or closings (e.g., closure for a holiday or the end of the regular season), routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops, routine restaurant reviews, quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization."

A brief look at HYCM's page finds information, though admittedly sparse, describing acquisitions, offices, achievements, purpose, history, publications, and regulatory bodies. If anything, this page satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH and should be grown and edited, not deleted. Pages on Wikipedia are meant to grow and expand, especially on the input of Wikipedia editors, and with a notable company with good information, deletion should be reserved only for those that seriously detract from Wikipedia guidelines. In response to -- HighKing, I have to say that good articles don't simply spawn out of thin air. If you want to find analysis and introduce new information, you can go ahead and improve the article in that fashion. Because a page exists doesn't mean that it's incompletion is permanent.

Secondly, I am having trouble understanding why there are WP:ORGIND claims, when it sources almost 20 different articles and sources, along with what seems to be a legitimate award from Forex among others. Hardly any of them show fabrication or creation by the subject of the Wikipedia page whatsoever. Forbes, Forex, World Finance, and Business Wire are reputable, independent sources. A simple Google brings up IBTimes articles, MarketWatch sources, and the Wall Street Journal, among many others. Sometimes, a Google search is the best way to establish reputability, notability, and whether it passes WP:ORGIND which it almost clearly does. You would have to be crazy to assume that sources like Forbes and IBT don't have a significant audience in accordance with WP:ORGIND , either.

Finally, other Forex brokers, such as IC Markets have had successful Wikipedia pages for years now, and this article can be counted as one of the more detailed of them. Again, steps should be taken to further expand the article, source it better because the sources do exist, and tag it for cleaning rather than a deletion. You cannot simply delete a page because people like TonyBallioni think "There's nothing to see here. Rather boring Forex company." To this I say, shame on you Tony. This is Wikipedia. Things don't get denied posting because specific people think it's boring. Millions of people across the world work in business that have to do with Forex trading, and it is very shameful to see a Wikipedian of your caliber take article posting in such a negative and immature way.

Anyway, I hope that shed some light a bit on this issue. I strongly recommend a KEEP vote, and I hope the administrators and editors responsible for flagging the page put their egos aside and work together for the benefit of the Wikipedia community. Please leave me a reply below this message if you have any questions, and I'll be happy to respond in kind. Thanks for the input from everyone! It's what makes Wikipedia great. Buddhabob (talk) 13:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Buddhabob, Based on your comments and reasoning contained therein, I believe you misunderstand what is required for meeting the criteria for establishing notability. The references (articles, books, etc) must be "intellectually independent". Both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND contain guidelines to assist in identifying references that are not considered intellectually independent - even if those references are published by indepedent secondary sources. The guidelines clearly state that material published by the company such as PR, announcements regarding funding, acquisitions, hiring/firing, new business, case studies, etc, are not "intellectually independent" and therefore are not considered for the purposes of establishing notability. In some cases, where an article is based on a company announcement but also contains independent opinion or analysis, those references would count towards establishing notability. There are two tasks when looking at references. The first is to check that the source is an independent secondary source, and your comment in relation to the article referencing almost 20 different articles and sources only confirms that the first part of the task has been attempted. What you are failing to do is to then ensure that each individual reference is "intellectually independent". That is, the article is not just repeating or entirely based (even though paraphrased) on material produced by the company. The references produced for this article fail the criteria. There are no intellectually independent articles, independent opinions or analysis. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, Highking, from what I've seen is a wide variety of business publications that mention HYCM (IBT, Forbes, WSJ) in a purely analytical format, not as one to promote or praise its services, negating the ones for awards. I think that interpreting what constitutes WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND is too convoluted to remove this article, especially when there are dozens of other articles that I've seen that are stubs on Wikipedia with little to no sourcing at all. Deleting this article will prevent industrious people like yourself from making this article better, and from what I've seen on Google, we can easily put our efforts into ensuring that this article definitely meets policy requirements. Buddhabob (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs a complete re-write and removal of WP:ORGAWARDS, but the subject passes GNG. Contains several references. Mar11 (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources (and it currently doesn't contain enough) to show that it passes WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this appears to be a WP:MILL platform for forex trading. None of the references seem to be sufficient for WP:GNG; if any of the keep voters would like to give one or two references they feel are substantial non-neutral coverage, please do so. I see mostly trivial references, regulatory paperwork, and press releases on BusinessWire. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 07:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I recommend a return to first principles here:

"any significant or demonstrable effects on society or economies"? None that I could see.
Comparison with other existing articles. That's a ding on the other articles, not a credit to this one.
Quotes by the company or its principals are not coverage of the company.
Choice of sources: Organs that rewrite press releases are not intellectually independent in my book. The award comes from World News Media whose business model is based on vanity awards.Rhadow (talk) 10:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a run-of-the-mill financial service company. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Copy is highly promotional and touts the owner's charitable donations. Nothing stands out about this company, so "delete". K.e.coffman (talk) 03:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. As it is currently, this article is much better developed than many Forex trading pages currently present on Wikipedia. With a bit more clarification, and with the wide variety of sources available, this article can still be improved and it can stand out. Buddhabob (talk) 14:09, 29 September 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. WP:HEY Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Heywood[edit]

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

Fail to see how this person meets WP:AUTHOR and, more importantly, WP:GNG. The only source is credited to his own website. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You sure? I mean WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP and even a quick gNews search [108], google [109] or JSTOR search [110] indicates that notability is probable. Looks to me like someone just needs to make time to source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I won't argue for or against deletion, but I did find where he's mentioned here and here in academic texts. I know that Google Scholar hits can be wonky, but there do seem to be quite a few people citing his work. ([111]) That said, it's debatable whether or not this is just a sign that he could be used as a reliable source or if he would pass WP:NPROF. (On a side note, NPROF is something that's very different from NAUTHOR or other notability guidelines so in all fairness it's a little harder to find sourcing unless you have access to academic databases.) Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete does not meet WP:AUTHOR fails WP:GNG. --EC Racing (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines for writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Heywood's best-known book in its 6th Edition, has massive circulation, appears on university politics course reading lists.edit made by: 2001:8003:3916:6800:6912:89a:b443:f8a5

WP:HEY, I did a little sourcing. London Times describes his textbooks as best-sellers; certainly several of them have gone through multiple editions over many years. I can also see that his textbooks are widely cited in other textbooks, news articles, and academic articles. I do think that someone needs to take a closer look at this one, despite the fact that a writer of bestselling textbooks is not quite WP:PROF, nor is he the usual WP:AUTHOR. Note that at least two of his textbooks were reviewed in the Times.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Nom gives no evidence of having run WP:BEFORE, merely referencing sources already in article. However, clicking on the search bar shows numerous citations of scholars work in scholar, JSTOR, books and some news coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note it is rather difficult to provide physical evidence of me searching for the subject. Perhaps Gregory could try not insinuating that I have overlooked this step?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if you did run WP:BEFORE, although many Noms do take a moment to explain their decision to bring a BIO to AfD despite having found a great deal of potential sourcing. I am asking you to walk us through the reasons why you regard as non-notable a subject who is the author of multiple books that sell well enough to have run through 3, 4, or 5 editions of textbooks that are still in print and being assigned many years after they were first published. And also to explain your reasoning in bringing to AfD an author who is regularly cited in scholarly books and articles. Some examples if that can be found just by clicking on the toolbar: "Political theorist Andrew Heywood (2009) encourages us to think of multiculturalism as a broad ..." [112]; "Or, as Andrew Heywood gives an interpretation of Mill's argument: "Mill distinguished clearly between..." [113]; "According to the political theorist Andrew Heywood, both terms have since been mainly used to refer to three different expressions of conservative thought: opposition to any change or innovation so as to preserve the existing order in the name ..." [114]." I do see that he is notable, if at all, for writing bestselling textbooks on political theory, not as a political theorist. I am, however, persuaded that it is possible to attain notability in virtually any field of endeavor. And so I ask you to consider whether an argument can be made for notability based on Heywood's impact as the author of demonstrably popular and widely cited textbooks?E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shalor (Wiki Ed), EC Racing, John Pack Lambert, I would appreciate your thoughts if you have a moment to think about this question.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to refrain since this is a work account, but I will tag DGG - he's very good at judging this sort of thing. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a gBooks search on: "According to Andrew Heywood" [115]. The first 7 hits are on respectable looking poli sci books that are not the books I and other cite above. It gives a quick sense of the extent to which he a sort of standard source on the baseline academic consensus within political theory.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The subject is a secondary school teacher and author of school textbooks rather than an academic, so I don't think WP:PROF really applies. Similarly textbooks tend to be huge sellers so I don't think the circulation of his books is particularly informative – the dispartity between it and the small number of citations just goes to show that circulation doesn't automatically equal coverage. The reviews of his books in the TES give me pause, but I'd have to be convinced that it's possible to write an encyclopaedia article that says something beyond: "Andrew Heywood is a writer of textbooks. They have been positively reviewed." – Joe (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:PROF as the author of widely used textbooks--the extent of their use can be seen from the very high library count in Worldcat [116]. (Would also meet WP:AUTHOR, as the textbooks are quite obviously best-sellers--as the references show as well. In fact,anyone in the humanities of book-dependent social sciences who meets WP:PROF will very clearly meet AUTHOR, which is a very weak standard) DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with thanks to DGG and Shalor for their thoughtful comments.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this person is notable, we should be able to say something more substantial about his background.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a grade Z stub, but the author is a recognized expert in his field and is the author of multiple basic textbooks on political science and ideology produced by major publishers, some of which have went through multiple editions. Ergo a pass through WP:PROF. Carrite (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the points in [[WP:PROF 122.172.215.246 (talk) 17:40, 27 September 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 strongest arguments were for keeping, including supplying sources, and having reviewed the article for AfC. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Rennert[edit]

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

fails WP:CREATIVE -- no critical studies, no work in major museums. FailsGNG -- sources are local papers, mere listings, and himself. , DGG ( talk ) 08:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, First I should disclose I am the editor that approved this article out of AfC. References in the article include coverage by a New York City station, NYC parks department and artsy.net. Articles not included that could be added include articles by southwestart.com, santafeartajournal.com, and broward palm beach. His art has been featured in Union Square park in NYC (twice), which itself alone is potentially enough for GNG, not to mention a half dozen articles specifically about him, his work and exhibitions. Notability easily established, but that's not to say the article doesn't need improvement. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: need more people to make comment on this
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 14:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: in addition to the references the article already cites, this, this and this constitute enough significant coverage to pass WP:CREATIVE. DrStrauss talk 17:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The first is a local newspaper about a local attraction, which is not discriminating coverage; second is about a temporary exhibition, 3rd is from one of the many NY neighborhood websites. I think the right interpretation of NCREATIUVE is that it is an additional requirement on the GNG, in order to rule out temporary and minor material of this sort. But for those who think it just a guide to GNG, then the solution is to interpret the requirements for substantial, independent, and reliable strictly. Local news blogs are not RSs for notability. DGG ( talk ) 21:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:CREATIVE, which would require inclusion in a permanent collection of a major institution. A temporary exhibit does not qualify. No SIGCOV to meet GNG either, so it's a "delete" for me. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 06:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commment WP:CREATIVE does not require that an artist be in museum collection: it simply says that if they are, notability is met. The collections criterion is one of several criteria for notability listed in WP:CREATIVE.96.127.243.112 (talk) 17:12, 27 September 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. ansh 666 19:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infra Turbo Pigcart Racer[edit]

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

Redirect. nn recording. I favour a redirect to the artist; however this has twice been reverted by the article creator. Seeking a broader consensus TheLongTone (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect. Instead of deleting the article or redirecting to the artist, it would be a more logical decision to redirect to the song's album article, While(1 is less than 2). Lazz_R 15:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this has actually charted on one chart, the Billboard Hot Dance/Electronic Songs chart [117]. Is a placing on a minor Billboard chart enough to show notability? If not, redirecting to the album seems the most logical option. Richard3120 (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment okay look. I'm the creator of this page, so I would like to give my view. I wanna say that I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and I never made this page with the intention to upset or get disapproval. I just thought that the songs recording process and production and whatnot was enough to warrant a page dedicated to it. That and the fact that 2 of the other singles from the album (Avaritia and Seeya) already have pages dedicated to them, I thought that making a page for the other 2 singles (this and Phantoms Can't Hang) would be a interesting read for people. And considering that another track from the album (Petting Zoo) was not released as a single, nor was it featured on most versions of the album and it didn't appear on any charts - unlike Infra Turbo Pigcart Racer and has NOT been deleted, makes me feel that if that song deserves a page, then I feel this song does as well and more so. If you guys really think this page is unnecessary and not needed then by all means delete it, but I feel when compared to other songs I feel it's worth keeping and I believe people will read it. Segavisions1991 (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep? Per its rating on the Billboard, and the mentions I saw, it seems to be popularly connect to Deadmau5, so I think it can stay as a standalone. please ping: L3X1 (distænt write) 03:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 06:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've incorporated a few sources (e.g., Rolling Stone) into the article. I think the coverage, combined with the song's chart appearance, is enough to support a standalone article. gongshow talk 04:02, 27 September 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 Beginner (band). ansh 666 19:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute Beginner[edit]

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

Noticed this when someone re-added a link from Incel to this article (Incel/involuntary celibacy has had to be salted in multiple locations after it was repeatedly recreated). This appears to be nearly the same concept, although to be clear I don't have reason to believe that this page was created to get around the salt. This is an issue for WP:NOTURBANDICT (i.e. there are a lot of terms for a virgin, virginity, or sexual inexperience, and that's what dictionaries are for). It's a term about a concept we already cover. It's possible it could be mentioned at somewhere like virginity or celibacy but it's unclear the sources would justify inclusion in those large topics. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a German language term not notable in English. It is already on the German language Wikipedia.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to band shortcut as it was a few months ago, according to the history. Appears to be a minor, foreign neologism, not even worth a mention in another article here. TheValeyard (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. If you took a look at Category:Words and phrases by language you'd see that there is a precedent for that. Furthermore, a word that has been in usage since the 1990s is not necessarily a neologism. Even if it is a neologism, there are literally thousands of neologisms on Wikipedia which are fully fledged articles. Are we going to suggest deleting them all? probably not. 92.2.73.254 (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"But Other Stuff! is not a valid argument to make. Other neologism articles contain quality citations to support notability. This nonsense does not. TheValeyard (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is best to try hard to respond to what your correspondent actually said, or meant to say. I think 92's main point is that no term that has been in use for decades should be called a neologism, as "neo" means new, and the term should really only be applied to words or phrases that are actually new. Geo Swan (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to the IP user in precisely the manner necessary to rebut the silly assertion, it isn't my problem that you can't understand it. TheValeyard (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the phrase "absolute beginners" while adding "liebe" (liebe is German for love) yields 212 results; in the plural you get 229 results for a total of nearly 430 German news results. There is a distinct blog on the issue [118], and there are literally hundreds of vlogs of ordinary German citizens describing their relationship status under that term on video-sharing websites such as Youtube. Since I'm not proficient in German I could not refine my search effectively to yield more results so I imagine a native German would be able to establish this article's notability more easily. Besides, this is just about the only article that exists on sexuality in Germany. It seems more logical to expand our coverage rather than leave sexuality in Germany blank. I also disagree with Pontificalibus' delete rationale since English sourcing is not a requirement for contributing to English mainspace; better for him to suggest a change to Wikipedia guidelines rather than to argue that mute point here. Furthermore, the article has been monitored and reviewed by at least half a dozen German-language Wikipedia administrators on the German version since 2005, so I doubt they would let an obscure term slide like that, furthermore bosltering my perception of this article as meeting notability criteria. Also, the term has an abbreviation: AB. Usually terms only get abbreviations or acronyms whenn they are established as notable and widely used terms in an effort to save time due to being oft-repeated. 92.2.73.254 (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs and vlogs do not count when evaluating sources for questions of notability. TheValeyard (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Woah! Woah! Woah!
  A blanket dismissal of "blogs", without recognizing truly notable blogs, is not responsible. 99.x percent of blogs are non-notable, and exist in well-deserved obscurity. But there are hundreds of online publications, that are called blogs, that are at least as notable as print newspapers. I repeat, to give a blanket dismissal of "blogs", without explicitly recognizing that a large fraction of the blogs we have all actually heard of do completely measure up to the criteria we expect of WP:Reliable sources.
  Scotusblog is a good example. I have seen poorly informed contributors give it a routine dismissal, as "just a blog", even though well respected newspapers reporters on legal matters routinely cite its articles. We consider those reporters RS, so we should respect the sources they respect, even if its name contains the term "blog".
  If it has never occurred to you that the "blogs" we are most likely to have heard of are the ones most likely to measure up to our criteria for being considered RS, then please consider this now, and never denounce "blogs" again, without an explicit disclaimer.
  If you plan to continue to denounce all so-called blogs, even Scotusblog, and its clearly reliable peers, I will share my general experience that it seems to me that those who dismiss online sources as mere blogs, even when they are clearly reliable, often raise concerns that they are trying to push a clandestine POV. Geo Swan (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swan, that is entirely irrelevant as the blogs we are talking about here are well within the "99.x" range you yourself cite. Don't waste time with strawmen again, please. TheValeyard (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yard, not irrelevant, as you started off with the big mistake of conflating all blogs -- a potentially disruptive position to take. You seem prepared to continue to tout this misleading conflation.

As for your strawman crack -- sheesh. I haven't taken a position for retention or deletion fo this article, so how could it possibly be meaningful to accuse me adopting a strawman position? Geo Swan (talk) 05:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point, which is sailing right over your head, is that my statement that is correct in 99.9% of situations, i.e. this situation. It's sad that you have to resort to hammering this afd so early in it's run, but you gotta go with what you're good at, I guess. TheValeyard (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duh. I know that. I never described vlogs/blogs as sources. I merely mentioned them in response to insinuations that AB is non-existent. There are lots of reliable German news sources such as T-Online [119], Badische Zeitung [120] that use it. Furthermore, AB's not onely have a presence online but even have self-help groups. 92.2.73.254 (talk) 04:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duh (I can do that too). Merely existing does not equal "notable", that is the point of not using blogs as sources. TheValeyard (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Under no instance should this be the main entry under Absolute Beginner. IF there is sufficient coverage of the concept within German sources (and not merely something used a few times in blogs) to meet the requirements for a stand alone page, it would need to be under a disambiguation title like: Absolute beginner (German sexual neologism) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk • contribs)

Comment In most references you can find online, Absolute Beginners are not merely mentioned in passing in the source; rather it is the main topic of discussion. This would make it notable. 92.2.73.254 (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge' - should be around 3-4 sentences at most in virginity article, as about 90% of the article is relevant to that topic generally. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Furthermore, I tried to verify two of the „sourced“ statements by reading the given sources, the two turned out to be unfounded. Maybe someone should go over all the statements resp. sources.--Turris Davidica (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having gone over the sources, most seem attributable to established German newspapers and magazines. I can't read German myself, so I think it is useful to have German concepts available in English to English-speakers, which is where this article comes in. 2.31.187.220 (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Protected redirect to Beginner (band) essentially per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination). —Kusma (t·c) 09:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect target--??
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 06:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any suggestions for redirect targets other than Beginner (band), who used to be called "Absolute Beginner" when they started out. —Kusma (t·c) 06:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma:--See CasLiber's and Davidica's !vote(s).Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 06:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with a redirect to the band, provited the current article is deleted first, then the redirect created. Otherwise it will be an activist magnet. TheValeyard (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Beginner (band) per Kusma and The Valeyard. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:46, 29 September 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 appears to be that these sources are not adequate; a source needs to have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy before it can be used Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darkestville Castle[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG, sources are not reliable and doesn't appear to be notable. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A review of the sources at WP:VG/RS finds no-or-few sources. This is a delete as failing the WP:GNG. --Izno (talk) 11:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sources. GetSomeUtah (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because of what? I used a lot of resources and most of them have a strong foundation. In addition, I added a few more sources, if those are not enough for you. [User:OldGamer|OldGamer]] (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@OldGamer: Can you show the sources you have used are reliable, secondary sources? Most of them do not appear to be; maybe you can help us understand if some are. --Izno (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. But I don't inderstand that kind of sources do you need? IMDB, Gamasutra, Metacritic, Steam, a lot of video games media this is not enough for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldGamer (talk • contribs)
These sources are not obviously reliable, meaning they do not obviously have a reputation for publishing factual information. The majority also are not secondary, meaning they are not transforming our understanding of the game. --Izno (talk) 12:20, 27 September 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 Perizzite. ...and placing a request at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Uncontroversial technical requests to move the page to Perizzites (non-admin closure) Lourdes 06:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perizzites[edit]

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

This article is simply a much shorter counterpart to Perizzite. They are duplicates -- they're both about the Perizzites. All meaningful content in Perizzites is found, sometimes in somewhat different wording, in the longer Perizzite. I figure we shouldn't have the both of them. Alephb (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is actually older than perizzite by four years but the latter article is longer and better sourced. I don't see anything in the extant article that needs to be merged into the newer bettter perizzite. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Perizzite, per nominator rationale. No benefit to having its own page - Galatz ^Talk 17:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - After reading the below I agree this page should probably be the name (delete this page to make way for a move). - Galatz ^Talk 17:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - seems clear enough to me, and there is nothing to merge that isn't already in the other article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Perizzite, which is the more comprehensive article. Alansohn (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. However, Perizzites is the more appropriate name for a merged article. I presume the closing admin will know how to manage that. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Perizzite to here, after moving content from there to here, per above.Icewhiz (talk) 19:02, 24 September 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) 16:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Time spent reading[edit]

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

Arbitrary article. Time spent reading is the amount of time people spend reading. I hardly think it warrants an article explaining that. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 12:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article is an arbitrary collection of information, failing to distinguish different ways in which one might use one's time reading (e.g. time spent reading online work, time spent reading fiction versus non-fiction, time spent reading newspapers, time spent reading magazines, and so on and so forth). Vorbee (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very random collection indeed. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- Dane ^talk 19:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although the topic itself seems notable, and can be expanded with statistic, explanations, etc., current article definitely fits into WP:NOT#DICT, and deserves to be nuked. The article is almost devoid of content right now and I don't see it being of any sort of useful basis to expand on. tonyxc600 comms logs 16:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Not a reasonable stand-alone topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:44, 26 September 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) Lourdes 06:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Owens[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article reads like a case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL and fails WP:NOLYMPICS as he didn't win a paralympic medal. Gbawden (talk) 12:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It might not be the best written article but I think the references used, particular the Washington Post article, are enough to pass WP:BIO regardless of passing WP:NOLYMPICS - Basement12 (T.C) 14:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the first AFD appears to refer to Casey Owens (basketball), not the subject of this AFD. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I think this passes GNG / significance on the balance of things, with this WaPo story: link, burial at the Arlington Cemetery, being a Paralympic athlete, etc. If this article were to be kept, I'd volunteer to clean it up. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there is enough to pass WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:23, 22 September 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) 02:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Bernstein[edit]

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

Prod removed by creator. My concern is that this appears to be a non notable author who fails WP:NAUTHOR and lacks reliable sources Gbawden (talk) 10:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. , probably speedy delete as promotional for author whose books are not even in worldcat. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete written as WP:PROMO does not meet WP:AUTHOR and fails WP:GNG. --EC Racing (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR, his books do not appear to be well known ie. WorldCat shows A Rumor of Justice being held only in one library, a gsearch brings up just the usual non-useable suspects ie. amazon, goodreads, did find an article about him from his local paper, The Flathead Beacon but this is not enough. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:25, 21 September 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 Jiffy Pop. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 06:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick C. Mennen[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. WP:BEFORE turns up the nyt obit on the article and a few mentions that he invented Jiffy-Pop. Nothing whatsoever in detail. The only source for his invention of a medical device seems to be his company, and other primary sources, which of course does not speak to his notability. He apparently also invented an improvement to a gasoline lawn mower, but those are also primary sources.It appears the only detailed journalistic source is the nyt obit, and generally if a person hadn't been written about except at the occasion of their death, there is little chance they are notable. There's been quite a bit written about his inventions, but very little written about him. John from Idegon (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Jiffy-Pop source is a Congara product page. Conagra is a fortune 500 company. It should be considered the valid, additional source. I will happily improve on the page, however considering the history between this user and I, a third party should intervene. Bmk812 (talk) 09:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how the splash page for a product that doesn't even mention the subject of the article in question's name, shows in any way that this guy meets the above mentioned notability guideline? Never mind that the source isn't reliable or independent, just explain how a page that doesn't even mention the guy shows that the guy is notable. John from Idegon (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? The archived version talks about him in the first paragraph.Bmk812 (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This is a perfect candidate for being a redirect to Jiffy-pop. Mennen might not quite have enough notability for a stand-alone, but his crowning achievement really seems to be the popcorn (sorry gonorrhea invention). menaechmi (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Bmk812 (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a reasonable solution. John from Idegon (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jiffy Pop. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As this has been relisted twice despite a clear consensus to redirect, I wanted to mention again that Redirect to Jiffy Pop would be a reasonable solution to me, the nominator. John from Idegon (talk) 05:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

White Teeth (TV series)[edit]

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

Not to be confused with White Teeth (TV serial). This is a contested prod. It was originally prodded by Power~enwiki as "Not a notable TV series. No references in the article and none found other than IMDb ( [121] ), this appears to only be distributed on Youtube." I concur with this assessment, well, almost. As of yet no episodes have apparently aired according to IMDb, so the article is premature at best and my even be a hoax. The article does have other issues, most notably that it has apparently been created and most significantly edited by someone who has appeared in the subject, apparently for self promotion. AussieLegend (✉) 08:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Power~enwiki as the original prodder. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per my PROD nomination power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Beyond the IMDb page, all I can find are a crowdfunding campaign and some social media posts like this tweet from the production company noting that shooting for the show starts next month. No coverage found; does not meet WP:TVSERIES. gongshow talk 06:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – unsourced = no claim to notability. Also, fails WP:TVSHOW if there is no scheduled premiere date. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alinex[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Software (Linux distro) article of unclear notability, lacking independent references, and tagged for refs since 2011. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Dialectric (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 08:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) f e minist 12:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fast-a-Thon[edit]

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

No sources. No indication of notability. Also no indication this event merits its own article, as any sources would simply show how it could be included on the page of whichever organisation(s) held/organised this event. A Guy into Books (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I find a number of references to the term "Fast-a-Thon" online and I believe it meets WP:GNG. I have added some citations to the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - could transwiki to wiktionary, but this is a real thing and has received significant coverage in reliable sources, so passes V, NPOV, NOR, etc. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:53, 21 September 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. After Milowent has added sources, reviewing editors have chosen to keep the article. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 06:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure Park USA[edit]

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

Non-notable theme park, written like an advertisement. Home Lander (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If it was really written like an advertisement it would be eligible for speedy deletion, but it's not. Still, it fails WP:GNG after searching for sources._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It needs work but I found I could readily add some sources (I added a few) from newspapers directly about the park, and it seems to have regional notability.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel that this park has enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. However, I think the article needs to be heavily rewritten. With some work, I think this article could be fine. EMachine03 (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Milowent's additions; subjects meets WP:GNG. gongshow talk 03:28, 27 September 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Giannino[edit]

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

Non-notable ice hockey and inline hockey player. Fails to meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are all primary sources or stats sites. A google search likewise does not turn up anything that seems to meet GNG. DJSasso (talk) 01:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources listed satisfy GNG, no notable ice hockey accomplishments. As for the inline hockey national team representation, it is in no way a major sport (right now anyway), and it is really hard to validate whether any one particular championship is the "highest level" or not anyway. I think some inline events are notable, but only just, which in no way bestows notability on the players involved.18abruce (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:03, 28 September 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 10:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Höyryklubi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC (gsearch). DrStrauss talk 15:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is something I don't realize, this would appear to fail Speedy A7. I'm not speedying it because it's a field where I do not feel competent. DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: agreed but I've had a few speedies declined lately on grounds of article age. DrStrauss talk 09:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this title is in Turkish language.this title should change to Höyry club also I cant find more reasonable references about thatMr.ref (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's in Finnish, not in Turkish. And the title can't be changed to "Höyry club" because it's the official name of the event. JIP | Talk 09:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 12:51, 20 September 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) 19:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Gregory[edit]

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

Unnotable - very little coverage on the individual - though perhaps the company is borderline notable. Simply involved in starting a website. Also likely an autobiography ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 01:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. borderline promotional, focuses so much on the company with little about the person. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 12:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete clear WP:COI with editor Saptrix written as WP:PROMO and does not meet WP:BIO.--EC Racing (talk) 21:10, 20 September 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) 15:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asunder (American band)[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria in WP:MUSIC. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail criteria for bands and the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any sources, doesn't look salvageable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Orchard[edit]

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

Marked as being sourced to IMDB only for over five years (I was a little surprised to find that I was the person who tagged it then), still can't find reliable secondary sources that the voice actor meets WP:BIO. Reliable secondary sources providing independent coverage of the putatively living person would be, of course, welcome. joe decker ^talk 06:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not coming up with any coverage for this person to meet WP:BIO. gongshow talk 06:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article lacks any reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to the IMDb EL he died in 2015. I've made some changes to the stub accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 22 September 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 Final Doom. ansh 666 09:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casali brothers[edit]

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

Article has been WP:REFBOMB'd but the only real source I could find was a single interview, so it's pretty much entirely WP:PRIMARY. Therefore the article doesn't meet WP:BIO as it does not have "significant coverage in multiple published" sources. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was invited here as the original article creator. I created this back in 2007 with only primary sources. The nom is kind to suggest refbombing (which suggests RS overkill) when the real issue here is a lack of secondary sources (required to confer notability). In addition, my 2007 self was more of a "lumper" than a "splitter" and with the benefit of modern hindsight, I would suggest that the article probably suffers from an inappropriate grouping of topics akin to some of the issues addressed in WP:OVERCAT. I haven't yet had the opportunity check for proper sourcing, so I withhold my !vote for now, but I agree with the nom that in its current state the article falls short of WP's standards. -Thibbs (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect. I think the best way to approach the topic is to split it up with each brother receiving individual scrutiny. The three brothers on which the article focuses are Dario, Milo, and Stefano. Dario and Milo are involved in the video game industry. Stefano is involved in cartooning. Reviewing the sources via the custom search at WP:VG/RS, it seems that: whereas the expression "Casali brothers" receives very little in the way of coverage by mainstream RSes, Dario has received a significant amount of RS coverage, although many of them seem to be passing references and not "significant coverage" except in the aggregate which is not how the term is used at Wikipedia. Milo has received very little coverage at all and this coverage seems to consist exclusively of passing references. Not a good sign. Reviewing the mainstream sources (Google Books, Google News, etc.) shows that Stefano has also received a significant amount of RS coverage but as with Dario much of the coverage is passing in nature. So I think Izno's suggestion of a redirect to Final Doom may make the most sense at this point, without prejudice against the later creation of individual articles on either or both of Dario Casali and Stefano Casali. I will strike the "weak" from my !vote if, time permitting, I'm able to go through all of the many sources covering Dario and Stefano to the extent that I'm comfortable in asserting that none of the coverage is "significant coverage". -Thibbs (talk) 12:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Final Doom, when the mod/expansion redirects, per GNG. --Izno (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why this got two relists. Two !votes calling for a redirect before the first relist plus the nomination's "delete" should have resulted, at the minimum, in a redirect. Let's get an admin in here to close this. --Izno (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Final Doom, e.g. Final Doom#Development. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Final Doom TarkusAB^talk 21:25, 21 September 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 The Lifted Brow. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 03:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brow Books[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Sulfurboy (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Lifted Brow; the subject under discussion is the book imprint of the publication. The notability of The Lifted Brow itself is uncertain, but the two topics are related, so a redirect would be appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TLB per Kec. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:11, 24 September 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. Black Kite (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2010 Songs[edit]

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

Unnecessary due to the existence of Category:2010 songs. WP:LISTCRUFT. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, whose reasons I endorse. No evidence that the topic has received significant independent coverage, so also fails WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, i note that the 2010 music lists do not have singles released so this may be useful, but wow .... a lot of work.Coolabahapple (talk) 05:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nom is contra WP:NOTDUP and list satisfies WP:CLN and WP:LISTPURP as navigational list of articles, which additionally provides added value in the form of annotations the category cannot. The GNG claim above has no applicability here as this is not a topic, but rather an index, though I'm sure we could find sources discussing the year's singles or notable songs as year-end wrapups or awards summaries, even if we thought WP:LISTN was a meaningful standard here. One does not need such special pleading to establish year of release/publication as an encyclopedic method of organization/categorization. postdlf (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2004 Songs. Ajf773 (talk) 08:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are multiple lists to this effect, e.g. List of number-one Billboard Tropical Songs of 2010, List of Canadian Hot 100 number-one singles of 2010, and 2010 in American music. This page is very incomplete, and no content here would be retained in List of lists of 2010 songs. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Repurpose and move to, better yet, Lists of 2010 songs per Power. I think a "list of lists" is better, as it encompasses a broad network of lists of songs, like the ones Power mentioned. ToThAc (talk) 17:25, 29 September 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 Muvhango. (non-admin closure) f e minist 12:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buhle Samuels[edit]

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

insufficient evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The show is the third most popular TV programme in South Africa: about one-in-eight of the population watches it and the subject is an actor who plays one of the show's villains. The subject is a celebrity in southern Africa; I'd suggest that 35,000 Twitter followers and a range of recent online and hard-copy media references tend to support her notability. Bad-patches (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Muvhango 35,000 followers isn't a lot, and this has been her only acting role so far. I would have no prejudice to re-creation if she does more with her career. Nate • (chatter) 04:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Muvhango; a valid search term per WP:ATD-R. No prejudice against recreation if the subject attains notability for a standalone article in the future, per Wikipedia's standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Muvhango. Agree with the other !voters.L3X1 (distænt write) 02:59, 28 September 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) 19:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Watson (director/actor/musician)[edit]

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

Non-notable local director/actor/musician, created by WP:SPA. Initially created with no sources and subject to a BLPPROD placed by another editor, which I removed once sources were added. However, the sources added are not independent of the subject, other than one (theatrepeople.com) that seems to catalog anyone involved in theatre without regard to notability. I PRODDed it, but it was removed without explanation by the creating editor. TJRC (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:BLP. Maybe comes (slightly) close to passing WP:NACTOR? I think it is hard to say without more significant reliable secondary sources covering his career. Comatmebro (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough to demonstrate significant coverage in WP:RS and no apparent qualification under WP:NACTOR. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete producing notable plays in non-notable venues does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Klank[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails notability guidelines: WP:GNG for sure and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. bd2412 T 01:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not-notable. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:49, 27 September 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) 19:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nishan bhattarai[edit]

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

WP:BLP, based entirely on primary and unreliable sources with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all, of a person notable only as an as yet non-winning contestant on a reality show. As always, this is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself -- to get an article because reality show per se a person has to win the show, and anybody else who doesn't win still has to accumulate notability the normal way: by actually accomplishing something that passes WP:NMUSIC and garnering reliable source media coverage for that. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he passes NMUSIC, but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. Bearcat (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not anywhere near GNG. Delete or salt draft till 'Nepal Idol' grand finale in Qatar on Sept 22 In ictu oculi (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete contestant in non-notable music contest. Even in notable contests most contestants are not notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:58, 27 September 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 Lockheed Martin Compact Fusion Reactor#History. While I have redirected the article to Lockheed Martin Compact Fusion Reactor#History, if any editor wishes the redirect to be targeted at any other section, the same can be taken up with me on my talk page. Thanks. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 03:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas McGuire (engineer)[edit]

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

Not a notable engineer. Most mentions of him are only in reference to the big science thing he works on, for example [122], or [123]. It seems his coverage is because he is the public face of the project. It was previously a Redirect to Lockheed_Martin_Compact_Fusion_Reactor#Design, . Google Scholar also doesn't imply that he would pass WP:NACADEMIC for the few papers he has published. menaechmi (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Return to Redirect per nom. No significant coverage in available sources. Fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)AuthorAuthor (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Return to Redirect Does not appear to be sufficient reason for this BLP to be a full article. The Redirect, to a section where multiple sources mention the person, seems adequate. N2e (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Return to Redirect per N2e, but it should redirect to either the History section (since that is where the first/main mention of McGuire occurs) or the top of the page, not the Design section. -- Gpc62 (talk) 05:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Mink Coat Killa LP[edit]

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

Unreferenced album article with no indication of notability, brief google search indicates trivial coverage. Jax 0677 (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added some significant and reliable sources that are independent of the topic (i.e. The News & Observer [124], HipHopDX [125], HotNewHipHop [126]). — Za wl 17:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - As of 15:05 UTC on September 12, 2017, this article still does not go far beyond a track listing. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content such as the track listing and infobox are unsuitable to be merged into the artist article, if that's what you're implying the outcome should be. I see no issue with keeping the article since it's a new album, only released few months ago and there are already enough significant coverage for WP:GNG to be met. — Za wl 15:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Per WP:NALBUM, "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article". --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:01, 20 September 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 move to International Phonetic Alphabet chart. (non-admin closure) Nardog (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Phonetic Alphabet/Tables[edit]

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

WP:DEL13: A subpage in the main namespace. Nardog (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEL13 is simply another shortcut to WP:ATD, "Alternatives to deletion." Did you mean something else? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No I didn't. WP:DEL13 is not another shortcut to WP:ATD. In fact it's astonishing one could think that when WP:ATD has got nothing to do with the number 13. Nardog (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Click on it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Shawn in Montreal: Are you being serious? It's a shortcut to reasons for deletion #13: "Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace". Nardog (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - It only looks like it is pointing to WP:ATD--it is actually points to the 13th list element in the section above that. It is a weird redirect, so it is an easy mistake to make. --Mark viking (talk) 06:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping to create a list article for IPA charts, to make it easier to grab symbols without having to scroll through a long article. I apologize if using a subpage wasn't the correct way to do this. Can the article be moved somewhere where it would be acceptable? /ˈswɛ̹͡yn/⁷⁸ 20:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You could create a subpage of your userpage, for example User:Sweyn78/IPA Tables or User:Sweyn78/Tables/IPA. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, but then it wouldn't be of much help to others. I'm sure I'm not the only one that finds Wikipedia's IPA charts to be among the most convenient methods of interacting with the notation, nor the only person who would desire an IPA list article akin to List of grammatical cases. /ˈswɛ̹͡yn/⁷⁸ 21:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - There could be a room for an independent article that consists solely of a comprehensive list of IPA tables (in which case I for one think there needs to be prior discussion at Talk:International Phonetic Alphabet), but WP:TITLE directs us not to create a subpage in the main namespace and to give encyclopedic articles "recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent" titles (for reference, look at the titles of the pages under Category:International Phonetic Alphabet). So we could alternatively move the present page to a more descriptive title without leaving a redirect, but I just think it contains so little content that there's no need for its page history to be preserved. Nardog (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Apologies again for misunderstanding the way things are done here. I think that sounds reasonable; I've created a discussion at Talk:International Phonetic Alphabet#Potential list article regarding this, and I've copied the article's contents to User:Sweyn78/IPA charts. /ˈswɛ̹͡yn/⁷⁸ 23:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a better page title. Article is perfectly useful but is in a strange location. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 13:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support moving the article. How about to International Phonetic Alphabet (Charts), or something in that vein? Also, I've improved the article a fair bit. /ˈswɛ̹͡yn/⁷⁸ 07:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be against using a parenthetical title because it is not disambiguation (the International Phonetic Alphabet part of this article's title refers to the same alphabet as the article International Phonetic Alphabet). It should be International Phonetic Alphabet chart or something to that effect (cf. International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects). Nardog (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
International Phonetic Alphabet tables is the obvious move, or International Phonetic Alphabet charts. The article is an WP:Orphan so presumably you will want to add a link to it from the International Phonetic Alphabet article. wbm1058 (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nardog and Wbm1058: International Phonetic Alphabet chart matches the conventions of articles like International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects, so I think it's the better pick. And we should probably wait until after the move to add a link to International Phonetic Alphabet. /ˈswɛ̹͡yn/⁷⁸ 21:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to International Phonetic Alphabet chart as a reasonable destination for this list-class article. --Mark viking (talk) 06:53, 20 September 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Lynch[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:NACTRESS, or any other notability guideline. This is about the type of independent coverage about her. Every other available source is an interview or passing mention. menaechmi (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:Creative, where her niche is the Spanish-American translation. 158.59.127.132 (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete comes no where close to passing notability for actresses, which is all the article mentions she might pass in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relist final
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:52, 28 September 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 EOTO. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elephants Only Talk Occasionally[edit]

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

Redirect to EOTO, the artist's biography page. This album is discussed very little and not separately from the artist. Fails WP:NALBUM. Binksternet (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to EOTO as per nom; in-depth coverage for the album falls short of WP:NALBUM. gongshow talk 01:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and selective merge to EOTO, or delete. I like elephants, despite the fact that they only talk occassionally. Moreover, this one has been sitting at AfD, ignored, for so long that I took pity on it and ran a news archive search on proquest. 6 hits, all in article on EOTO, not about the album per se. One of the hits had this to say about "their debut, Elephants Only Talk Occasionally, improvised live in the studio on Boulder, CO, in 2006. 'We had no clue," Hann laughs. "All of the songs on Elephants Only Talk Occasionally were made up on the spot. We didn't know how to play them again. The sonic possibilities become pretty endless when you're in this mode where everything is open. It has to be a certain kind of texture to fit well, sonically, so we really have to listen to each other carefully.'" (EOTO: TAKING THE BASS INTO SPACE; Lesemann, T Ballard. Flagpole; Athens26.13 (Apr 4, 2012) 11. [127]). That's the best I found. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:30, 20 September 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) 02:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Hilton[edit]

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

The two Spanish references when translated don't seem to offer enough to meet WP:BAND. Probably also seems to be written by the subject, given the change to first person in the last paragraph, and the use of 'Cosmic Disturber' in the text and originating authors user name. Derek Andrews (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC) Derek Andrews (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage falls short of WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG; I am unable to find sources to satisfy these guidelines. gongshow talk 06:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Subject appears to be just another singer-songwriter playing in cafés and bars around the world - I checked his past concert dates and none of them are in venues any bigger than this. All his music and his book is self-published. No evidence of notability even in his hometown of Panama City. Richard3120 (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be enough information to confirm marginal notability. The article needs to be rewritten though in a more encyclopedic style. I therefore recommend that we keep it for at least up to a month longer.--INDIAN REVERTER (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: INDIAN REVERTER has been blocked from Wikipedia. Richard3120 (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete extreme lack of coverage and horribly written article to boot.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:05, 21 September 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Lawrence[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NSPORT. Based on comments on internet chat boards I don't think he would currently be considered a public figure. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability requirements for sportspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the GNG. Could not find indepth coverage regarding him as a racer.L3X1 (distænt write) 02:57, 28 September 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. czar 04:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh–Croatia relations[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 2.5 years. Relations are the same as Bangladesh has with most countries: no resident ambassadors, no state visits, no bilateral agreements, and negligible economic ties. The Atlas of Economic Complexity shows 2015 bilateral exports from Bangladesh at $12.9M (0.04% of total), and from Croatia at $6.4M (0.05% of total).[128][129] Possibly merge to Foreign relations of Croatia, although I don't see anything more than diplomatic boilerplate here.

The cited sources are two Bangladesh government press releases that were reprinted by news agencies without analysis. The press releases were issued on the occasion of Croatia's non-resident ambassador presenting his credentials in 2010, and bidding farewell in 2012. Additional press releases for other envoys exist, but stringing together non-independent primary sources would not make the topic suitable for a stand alone encyclopedia article. No coverage in third party, reliable, secondary sources, so fails WP:GNG. Worldbruce (talk) 00:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete as nom says absence of various things that typically make a notable bilateral relations. the only relations is a very minor level of trade. LibStar (talk) 02:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any 2 countries that have any relation at all should have an article where this relation can be documented. This includes articles with very minimal relations.--INDIAN REVERTER (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC) Blocked WP:VOA. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

absolutely not. there is no inherent notability of bilateral articles. in fact 100s of these with very minimal relations have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Nothing to establish notability here. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:47, 26 September 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] Edmund White (September 14, 1997). "The Celebration of Passion". The New York Times. Retrieved July 25, 2017.

[New_Yorker-2] "BECOMING THE EMPEROR How Marguerite Yourcenar reinvented the past". The New Yorker. February 14, 2005. Retrieved July 25, 2017.

[3] Bleier, Magda Palacci (1980). "After 300 Years, a Woman Writer (from Maine, 'Mon Dieu') Joins 'The Immortals' of France". People. Retrieved 21 September 2017.

[universityofhartfordarchivesblog-4] "Early Hartford College for Women History". University of Hartford Archives: Hartford College for Women and the WelFund. Retrieved 21 September 2017.

[5] Allen, Esther; Bernofsky, Susan (2013). In Translation: Translators on Their Work and What It Means. Columbia University Press. p. 77. Retrieved 21 September 2017.

[6] "Marguerite Yourcenar". Brookhaven National Laboratory. Retrieved 8 June 2017.

[Obituary-7] "Grace Frick Dies; Was College Dean - 25 Nov 1979, Sun • Page 24". Hartford Courant: 24. 1979. Retrieved 21 September 2017.

[Litoff-8] Litoff, Judy Barrett; McDonnell, Judith (1994). European Immigrant Women in the United States: A Biographical Dictionary. Taylor & Francis. p. 320. Retrieved 21 September 2017.

[9] "Councillor details - Bert Biscoe". 30 August 2017.

[10] "Bert Biscoe: Working for the future of Truro and Cornwall on the Cornwall County Council". www.bertbiscoe.co.uk.

[11] "Bert Biscoe - SaveTruro". www.savetruro.co.uk.

[12] "Bert Biscoe - Voices of Cornwall". voicesofcornwall.co.uk.

[13] "Bert Biscoe".

[14] "bert biscoe - Business Cornwall". www.businesscornwall.co.uk.

[15] ttp://www.cornwalllive.com/comment-bert-biscoe/story-20906203-detail/story.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[16] ttp://www.cornwalllive.com/city-s-heritage-constant-threat-says-bert/story-11386148-detail/story.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[17] "Hear Bert Biscoe's song Wilwaukee - Cornwall Today". www.cornwalltoday.co.uk.

[18] "Bert Biscoe - Isonomia". Isonomia.

[19] "Bert Biscoe and a piece of very important and very rare memorabilia". queenincornwall.blogspot.co.uk. 2010-11-18.

[20] "Bert Biscoe, and the Mayor of Launceston: opening 'A Space to Write' - The Charles Causley Festival".

[21] "Bert Biscoe Vote Independent". ElectionLeaflets.org.

[22] "Meditations Carn Brea Poems Pictures by Bert Biscoe Cliff Jones - AbeBooks". www.abebooks.co.uk.

[23] ttp://www.cornishassembly.org/OpenLetterToSarahNewtonMP27viii12.pdf. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[24] Tregarthen, John Coulson (30 August 2017). John Penrose: A Romance of the Land's End. Cornwall Editions Ltd. ISBN 9781904880028 – via Google Books.

[25] "WATCH: Protests over new Truro bus gate". 2017-03-16.

[26] "Cllr Bert Biscoe gave a most interesting and enlightening talk. - West Cornwall HealthWatch". westcornwallhealthwatch.com.

[27] "A response from Bert Biscoe". mebyonkernow.blogspot.co.uk.

[28] "Trustees - Royal Cornwall Museum".

[29] "Welcome to Cornwall Association of Primary Heads".

[30] ttp://www.cornwalllive.com/Parking-crisis-Truro-makes-life-just-hell/story-20511752-detail/story.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[31] "Tintagel Castle Merlin carving sparks 'Disneyfication' row". BBC News. 18 March 2016 – via www.bbc.co.uk.

[32] "Local residents complain after 'Disneyfication' of King Arthur site".

[33] "A bridge too far: The controversial plans to transform Tintagel".

[34] Goskar, Tehmina (21 February 2013). "Cornish heritage is a man's game".

[35] "Poetry: Trura - Cornish Story". cornishstory.com.

[36] "Councillor Contact Details - Truro City Council". www.truro.gov.uk.

[37] "Truro Civic Society". trurocivicsociety.com.

[38] Metro.co.uk, Oliver Wheaton for (22 November 2015). "Council spends £30,000 on bus lane, it causes chaos, they're forced to scrap it".

[39] "Brainiac 5 interview". www.psychedelicbabymag.com. 2014-05-02.

[40] Morris, Steven (18 March 2016). "'This is not Disneyland, it's Cornwall': the battle of Tintagel Castle" – via The Guardian.

[41] Council, Cornwall. "St Mary's Church spire moved back to Truro Cathedral - Cornwall Council". www.cormacltd.co.uk.

[42] "Poets lead Cornish revolt against 'English imperialism'". The Independent. 18 May 1997. Retrieved 26 September 2017.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]