Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 September	22 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Plater-Zyberk[edit]

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

I think this page fails BLP notability guidelines. He is a lecturer. I do not see RS about him. He has a number of publications and citations, but they hardly qualify him as someone notable. Here is previous AfD. My very best wishes (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citation record too low for WP:PROF#C1 and there seems to be nothing else. Note however that "senior lecturer" is a British academic job title more or less corresponding to "associate professor" in the US; unlike lecturers in the US, having this job title should not create a presumption of non-notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citations on GS give h-index of 5. Not enough for WP:Prof#C1. Nothing else. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I agree, but just out of curiosity, which value of h-index would be sufficient? My very best wishes (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very significant question about which there has been vast debate in the archives of Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). It depends on the subject. Judging by precedent, I would say that an index of at least 10 would be needed to be competitive here, i.e. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

After looking through this discussion, it seems the entire idea of using formal metrics is partly problematic. Yes, someone with low h-index is definitely not notable. However, even someone with a high h-index may not deserve a page if he is not significantly and in depth covered in secondary RS. My very best wishes (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

High h-index is always sufficient to pass PROF 1. Refereed publications qualify as RS, though primary, so they can be used to source minimal info to at least flesh-out a stub. However, low h-index does not necessarily imply non-notability, for obvious reasons. As Xxan said, this has been discussed for years here. Informal, though long-standing consensus seems to be that 10 to 15 is the borderline range, though in some high-citation fields, like most branches of the biomedical sciences, 20 or 25 might be more like the minimum. Anything below 10 is usually taken as TOOSOON when there are no other independent notability contributors. Agricola44 (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to pass any PROF criteria. Agricola44 (talk) 15:37, 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. But given significant quality issues, some maintenance tags are needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ball-pen probe[edit]

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

Unclear notability, most of the journal articles referenced have as an author the inventor, who is also the creator/primary contributor to this article. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tricky. On the one hand, that's a lot of valid sources, and apart from some over-illustration (and grammar), that's a very well-constructed article. On the other hand, the COI is strong in that one - the inventor and main page editor features in 24 of the 38 refs, and at least three others seem to be theses from their graduates; and honestly, starting an article with "X is a novel technique for..." raises immediate warning flags about WP:TOOSOON. I think non-familiarity with the field prevents me from assessing this one correctly. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Users Adamekjiri: Dear users, I agree that COI is strong in this case because I am the main contributor to this article as well as the inventor of this probe technique :). On the other side, I believe this also helps to this article to be as correct as possible. There are many students and other colleagues who appreciate this overview. I agree that we can remove novel, because it is already more than 10 years since the first experiment. 17:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC+2:00)

Keep, but seriously trim. A lot of the references fail WP:INDY, but I feel that the refs listed (as of now) at 20 and 22 are enough to show that this has been used by multiple independent research groups who published nontrivial data using it, that is as close as a scientific instrument can get to "notable".

This being said, Adamekjiri, it is not acceptable to use Wikipedia as a repository for instruction manuals of your lab. It is visible that the article required a great deal of work from your part, but most of that was wasted if the only intention was to have it on Wikipedia. We simply do not operate as a university webpage.

Images such as File:ELM_12603_temporal_evolution.png have nothing to do on a general encyclopedia page, nor have the exact magnetic fields used at each institution, and the whole article is a bit heavy on the WP:DUEWEIGHT side. The probe was invented by Jiří Adámek strikes me as slightly WP:POV ("being the first to use" and "inventing" are not in my opinion synonyms; I would guess the other research groups have gone to great lengths to replicate the instrumentation in a different manner).

I will try to give a good clean-up the page over the weekend, but don't wait on me if you want to cast a !vote. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Current ref 33 also seems to be from an independent work group. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The number of papers might be reduced, if you think. However, in this case: The probe was invented by Jiří Adámek and first time used as well. I have spent quite a lot of time to design the article:). Please, keep at least the scientific part the same as it is. On the other side, if the article will be significantly modified because of some Wiki rules then it is better to delete all :). 21:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC+2:00) Adamekjiri

Adamekjiri, some misapprehensions there. # Wikipedia articles are intended to provide a summary and overview over a topic, not a manual or in-depth coverage; thus, condensation and abstraction are the norm, and this article is excessively detailed at the moment. # The point of WP articles is not to provide an outlet for what you consider the best-constructed treatment, but what by consensus is suitable for the WP format; thus, anything contributed WILL be altered by any number of editors, and you don't get to decree that it's either your version or nothing. # Lastly, you being the inventor and principal user of the device does not give you any special say over the article - to the contrary, it means you should take a less active hand in it than others (the best thing to show that a thing is WP:NOTABLE is that it is written about by someone other than the originator/inventor, you see...). - So please don't shoot yourself in the foot now with WP:OWNERSHIP actions. It appears to me that with some modifications this may become a fine article, but it's likely not going to look exactly like what you planned. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that modification by user can improve the version of this article. However, I believe that the modification of the scientific part also requires deep knowledge of the plasma physics. This is kind of "overview" because the probe were used at different ways under the different plasma condition, which is important to understand the probe technique and correctly present it. This why I have putted all my knowledge here on wikipedia to give some "overview" how this "new" probe technique works. Unfortunately, it is still difficult to provide simple scientific model for the physics behind, which is maybe what you expect. I would be happy if somebody else will contribute or improve this article. 12:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC+2:00) Adamekjiri

Update: I did some heavy trimming. There might be still a few too many links, but I hope the article is now (1) at a reasonable size and (2) understandable for someone with a decent background in electronics/electromagnetism and willing to follow the plasma physics links.

@Adamekjiri: I apologize for my previous post, which was quite aggressive for no good reason. Your article had all the red flags of "lone researcher with poor English posts their pet project on Wikipedia", and then it usually takes some time to explain the new editor how we operate (we require evidence of notability to keep articles, so a one-person project rarely qualifies), and even more time to search for something that can be saved in the article, before the whole thing goes to trash 90% of the time. I looked through your version with a prejudiced mood at first, and that mood permeated in my posting. Otherwise, would you be so kind as to check the article? There are a few points where I think a specific reference is needed, and you probably know which article has it; also, I had to simplify in a few places, and you might want to check I did not write anything that is wrong or misleading. I think I understand enough of plasma physics for the rewrite, but I may be wrong. (If you want to discuss about the article, please answer at Talk:Ball-pen probe rather than here.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 19:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While the article could use some work (way too many citations in multiple spots, excessive detail in others, etc) I think it is notable and a useful article to have. At the very least, the page creator put significant effort into it, even if they do have a significant COI. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is worth keeping because it's notable. It needs work admittedly but it does not need WP:TNT. -- Dane ^talk 01:01, 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 Userfy. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TagTeam (software)[edit]

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

Seemingly NN open source product, created by apparent WP:COI editor. No assertion of importance. Failed Prod when creator objected. Toddst1 (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Userfy. The deprod claims the software has unique features and is useful, or that knowledge of it is useful. That doesn't make it notable. Mduvekot (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC) Update: creator has requested userfication. The subject may become notable once it receives more coverage in RS. Mduvekot (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response. I'm sorry and embarrassed that I didn't understand the notability and COI rules as well as I should have. I am Peter Suber, and I direct the TagTeam development effort. I'm disclosing my name and involvement to show that I'm not trying to hide anything. I defer to the Wikipedia rules and thank you for your patience. I was only trying to write a valid article about a valid tool, and improve Wikipedia.
- The draft article included links to two independent web sites recognizing TagTeam and properly classifying it according to its functions. I thought two would be enough. But in discussing this with some more knowledgeable friends, I realize that two are not enough. In light of that, I accept that it was premature to put this forward.
- For background: There's an unfortunate chicken-egg problem here. For several years after the software development began, TagTeam was too immature to publicize, even if it was mature enough for me and many others to use in public work. Without publicity, or the systematic recruitment of new users, few people knew about it, which is why no one wrote about it. Through word of mouth, TagTeam has attracted 391 separate research projects, nearly all of them independent of me, the TagTeam developers, and Harvard. Now that it's mature enough to publicize, it's still much less well-known than weaker tools in the same category, including weaker tools with Wikipedia entries. Among other things, I was hoping the Wikipedia article could help spread basic factual information about it.
- I ask that my existing draft be moved to my user sandbox, where I can continue to revise it, and add more independent discussions of TagTeam as they appear. I'm told that I shouldn't move it myself, but request that a Wikipedia editor "userfy" the current draft. Argonfulcrum (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per the article creator's request herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per author's request.L3X1 (distænt write) 03:03, 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted by RHaworth, CSD G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maths Time Joy[edit]

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

Unnotable artist. None of his claims have sources, except from the work with Mahalia who is herself not very notable. First two sources do not mention his name. A google search of "Maths Time Joy" comes up with no RS, mostly his social media or iTunes/apple music links. The cites that do mention him literally only mention him. CSD was declined, but I don't see any reliable claim of notability, other than unsourced name-dropping ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 21:30, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tadeusz Patzek[edit]

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

Nonnotable engineer, tagged since March 2017 Staszek Lem (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. He has publications, and he was briefly mentioned in a couple of news sources. However, he does not seem to satisfy any of our notability criteria. My very best wishes (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC) I do not know if he satisfies our notability guidelines, but this is just a typical "Who is who" page. It tells almost nothing interesting or useful on the subject. There are no even links to any useful information. My very best wishes (talk) 12:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is an attribute of an article subject, not of an article as it currently exists. And, anyway, why shouldn't an encyclopedia article just state the basic facts about its subject? That's what happens in nearly all paper encyclopedias, and there is no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't also have short articles, made even shorter by your removal of content from this one by your insistence that it should only include content from the most recent of sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basic facts are fine. But after looking at sources, I do not think this page can be improved. Even his place of work at University of Texas can be verified only using University website [1]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not believe that the University of Texas is a reliable source for who held what position there? For articles about entertainers, sportspeople etc. we accept sources well below the standard of universities, who would suffer enormous reputational damage if they were shown to publish falsehoods. And why do you talk about whether the article can be improved? That would be good, but the article is perfectly fine as it is. We don't need trivial biographical details such as his inside leg measurement or favourite food. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ per WP:PROF criterion 5, and quite probably other criteria. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which source tells he is a "Distinguished professor"? I do not see any. My very best wishes (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I could have sworn that one of the sources that was in the article yesterday confirmed that he had been Cockrell Family Regents Chair at the University of Texas at Austin, but it seems that I was mistaken. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is most recent source mentioning the person, and it tells he works in a different place and has a different position. Nothing about University of Texas.My very best wishes (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, but he fomerly worked at the University of Texas. The thing that is unverified is his claim to have held a named chair there. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His web page at UTexas mentions both the Cockrell chair and the Lois K. and Richard D. Folger Leadership Professorship. The Folger one appears to be an ex officio chair for the head of a department, rather than one assigned personally to him on the basis of outstanding scholarship, so it doesn't count towards notability. But the Cockrell chair would presumably count, if we could find a more independent source for it. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C5. I found this source which, as an official press release from the university, should serve as adequate verification that he held the Cockrell Family Regents Chair at the University of Texas. His Google scholar profile also gives him a very clear pass of WP:PROF#C1, with 18 publications cited over 100 times (5 would be enough to convince me), one over 1000, and an h-index of 42. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. David Eppstein was able to find a source confirming a pass of WP:PROF#C5, and it seems that the subject also passes other counts of WP:PROF. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep due to his Google Scholar record - he has several solo-authored works at 100+ cite. I do have my doubts about PROF#C5 (let's keep in mind this is a guideline, not policy); stuff like [2] doesn't strike me as particularly significant. How selective is the criteria for getting this title? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in mind that GNG is also a only guideline. So unless we can find another policy that bears on this decision, that's the highest level we're going to find. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Holding the named chair at the University of Texas is a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Cliette[edit]

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

I'm unable to find any substantial independent coverage of the subject in reliable sources. 4/5 of the references cited are from the university where he works. Pretty close to G11-worthy. SmartSE (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable public speaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possible WP:COI with editor, fails WP:BIO and written as WP:PROMO--EC Racing (talk) 00:00, 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) 18:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jaiden Animations[edit]

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

This initially came as a slightly different request on VRTS ticket # 2017092110027894 to remove information, but upon further inspection I find that neither Jaiden the YouTube personality nor Jaiden the person are at all notable. I can find no in-depth coverage online, and the references included in the article are little more than school newspapers and self-published sources. Thus, she does not meet WP:GNG. Primefac (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG, appalling sources, and objections by the subject. I just removed the personal information in question. Starting an AFD would have been my next step. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete no evidence of recoginition. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficiently notable. Main source is SPS. Sorry. Collect (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the criteria of WP:GNG for an article in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:13, 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 procedural close. Nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethiopia men's national under-16 basketball team; no need for separate AfDs. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey men's national under-16 and under-17 basketball team[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethiopia men's national under-16 basketball team Schwede 66 19:18, 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 procedural close. Nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethiopia men's national under-16 basketball team; no need for separate AfDs. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tunisia men's national under-16 and under-17 basketball team[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethiopia men's national under-16 basketball team Schwede 66 19:17, 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 procedural close. Nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethiopia men's national under-16 basketball team; no need for separate AfDs. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spain national under-16 basketball team[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethiopia men's national under-16 basketball team Schwede 66 19:17, 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 procedural close. Nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethiopia men's national under-16 basketball team; no need for separate AfDs. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia men's national under-16 and under-17 basketball team[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethiopia men's national under-16 basketball team Schwede 66 19:17, 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 procedural close. Nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethiopia men's national under-16 basketball team; no need for separate AfDs. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuania men's national under-16 and under-17 basketball team[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethiopia men's national under-16 basketball team Schwede 66 19:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:43, 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 procedural close. Nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethiopia men's national under-16 basketball team; no need for separate AfDs. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Italy men's national under-16 basketball team[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethiopia men's national under-16 basketball team Schwede 66 19:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:43, 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 procedural close. Nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethiopia men's national under-16 basketball team; no need for separate AfDs. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guinea-Bissau national under-16 basketball team[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethiopia men's national under-16 basketball team Schwede 66 19:15, 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 procedural close. Nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethiopia men's national under-16 basketball team; no need for separate AfDs. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greece men's national under-16 basketball team[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethiopia men's national under-16 basketball team Schwede 66 19:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:48, 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 Trainwreck. Too many disparate articles in this nom, seems like. I see support for keeping the Lithuania article as a minimum, and no clear consensus on any of the others Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopia men's national under-16 basketball team[edit]

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

I fail to see how a national under-16 basketball team will possibly meet WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGDEPTH. I shall nominate all nine teams listed at Category:National under-16 basketball teams. Editors who comment on this may also voice an opinion on other age groups, i.e u17 (84 teams), u18 (10 teams), u19 (96 teams), and u20 (11 teams). And then we have 164 national youth women's basketball teams.

But coming back to the first (men's u16) category. Not a single article has sources that are independent and give in-depth coverage. I feel sorry for the editors who will no doubt have put many hours into establishing all these pages. Schwede 66 19:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did you search for sources first for these articles as per WP:BEFORE? Just wondering, as you do not mention it. Dammit_steve (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google News search using the search string "under-16" basketball and what shows up is quite a bit. What the articles cover is about individual stars, and tournaments. Also quite a bit about various US teams (as basketball is big there, but there's no national USA team within the AfD nomination anyway). I haven't seen anything about various national teams beyond routine reporting, with one exception (a report in The New Zealand Herald about the women's u-16; that's probably biased by Google given that I'm in NZ). Schwede 66 23:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I myself did a search of one of the older teams not (yet) nominated that was under sourced, found quite alot in its native language from reliable sources (even found plenty for their U16 team that doesn't have an article). If there are sources about these teams it is probably in their native media rather than in english spoken media. I don't know much about basketball in Africa but it is fairly big in those European countries and if they are having success then it is very well possible that they have some good reliable sources. I just don't speak any of those languages well enough to be of help there... Dammit_steve (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are tons of "under-" national teams on Wikipedia, not just in basketball but also in Association Football, Rugby, Volleyball, etc. The "under-" sports teams draw major international attention throughout the world and, in many cases, enjoy significant media coverage. (as stated above) It makes me sad to see how you can jeopardize all these Wikipedia entries just because one user is obviously not so much interested in the topic. Stephreef (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ridiculous nomination. I don't know anything about the Ethiopia youth basketball teams, which only takes the 93rd place in the FIBA World Rankings (http://www.fiba.basketball/rankingboys), however I can tell a lot about the Lithuanian youth national teams (second best teams in the world according to the rankings), which are actively covered by all the major news websites in our country. For example, take a look here: https://www.basketnews.lt/komandos/341-lietuvos-jaunuciu-rinktine/naujienos.html. It is one of the primary basketball-based websites in Lithuania and it includes 16 pages of articles about the Lithuania men's U-16 national team since 2005. Other news websites such as 15min.lt, Delfi.lt, lrytas.lt also comprehensively describes and follows every youth national team performance in the championships. So to sum everything up, I can guarantee that in our country youth national teams are covered almost as good as the Lithuania men's national basketball team and this nomination should be rejected, especially when we are speaking about the Lithuania youth national teams. -- Pofka (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be that some of these articles do meet notability requirements; that's the point of going through an AfD process. As far as I know, basketball is a really big thing in Serbia, so we may hear similar things from those quarters. But that's what it's all about. Schwede 66 09:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66: Exactly. I am not able to read/understand anything in Serbian, but I am completely sure that they have identical comprehensive sources as the Lithuanian ones because basketball is a really big thing for Serbians as well. Other countries which are also worth mentioning could be Latvia (it is like 50/50 basketball and hockey), Turkey (it has one of the strongest national championships in Europe), Spain (possibly strongest national championship in Europe), Greece (similar to Lithuania and Serbia currently mostly due to Olympiacos B.C. and Panathinaikos B.C.), Croatia (still loves basketball due to the glorious Yugoslavia past). Not really sure about France, which has quite good national team and is able to gather almost 30 000 spectators to basketball games, however basketball is probably too overshadowed by football there. -- Pofka (talk) 09:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Pofka. Asturkian (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep ...as discussed. I further added some sources to the article about Ethiopia. Shouldn't you check whether the article can be improved rather than be deleted first?? Stephreef (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Pofka and Stephreef, for all the teams listed. Ridiculous, time-wasting nomination. I have no interest in basketball, but I routinely look up information on Wikipedia about age-group national teams in soccer. If content like this doesn't belong here -- including less-prominent national teams from non-English-speaking countries -- what does? -- Gpc62 (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. At the very least, it appears as though some, if not all, of these teams are notable. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - some of these teams are obviously notable. Future nominations should apply WP:BEFORE. Rlendog (talk) 16:01, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Field office technical guide[edit]

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

Seems to lack WP:GNG and has no sources. Shaded0 (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete a mundane, nonnotable document. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- trivial topic. In no way notable. Rhadow (talk) 23:27, 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) 19:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Private Jet Card Comparisons[edit]

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

non-notable company. Page is mostly promotional Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails notability criteria for organizations. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --- SPA-written piece in promotional style Rhadow (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails org guideline not notableTipsygunny (talk) 22:31, 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) 19:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LogicMonitor[edit]

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

Non-notable company that fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. The current sources for the article are barely able to establish notability. Others can be found, but none in my mind are in depth enough (the vast majority are press releases along the lines of "LogicMonitor implemented this for said company") to meet Wikipedia's criteria for encyclopedic content. Of further note, nothing establishes LogicMonitor as being notably different from other cloud-computing providers, and as such the article fails WP:MILL. This subject simply has no credible claim of significance that merits inclusion on an encyclopedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Fails WP:NCORP. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Additional to the above looks like undisclosed paid editing in breach of the TOU. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:14, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn per HEY, BEFORE, and a little dash of self-TROUT. I was nominating based on its similarity to other articles and lack of sources and I kind of got carried away. Primefac (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zubov[edit]

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

This technically falls under WP:BLPPROD based on the last few paragraphs, but I want to point out that even without those paragraphs this is basically a duplicate of Zubov (surname), and that page should be moved here. It has been unreferenced since it was created and offers little more than the surname dab does. Recommending either moving the (surname) page to this location or redirecting this page there. Primefac (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The proposal has no merit. Zubov (surname) is a disambiguation page, whereas Zubov is the page about a comital (Reichsgraf) and princely (Reichsfürst) family. It offers much more than a mere dab and has been there for as long if not longer. You may equally argue that Howard family is "basically a duplicate" of Howard, Spencer family is "basically a duplicate" of Spencer, etc. - and prod these as well. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, except that it has almost no information other than a list of names. Additionally, it's completely unsourced. Primefac (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You should have added an appropriate tag ("unreferenced", "fact", etc.) or added references yourself rather than filing a request for deletion. Lack of references is not a valid reason for deleting articles about historical personalities. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, but "this doesn't add anything to the encyclopaedia" sure is. Primefac (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. Two centuries ago the Zubov family owned about half of the territory of Lithuania. We have plenty of articles about its residences: Rundāle Palace, Raudonė Castle, Zubovai Palace, Žagarė Manor, etc. I see no valid reason for deleting an entry about the family itself. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A good rule of thumb is that topics that have articles on multiple other wikipedia language projects tend to be notable. Check the Russian language version for plenty of sources for GNG. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 20:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable, referenced. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable specific family. Antrocent (♫♬) 21:29, 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 Buck Clarke § Discography. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Buck Clarke Sound[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Based on what appears to be user generated sites. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Buck Clarke. Besides mere catalog listings, I found brief mentions in Asbury Park Press [3] and Sound & Vision [4], but I don't see enough to meet WP:NALBUM. A redirect to the artist's page, where the album is listed, seems reasonable. gongshow talk 04:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WTF?? Seriously y'all deleting something that I created. what's y'all problem?? This album exist in many ways. People may or still have this album . Why deleted it? User:Ceedub88 16:07, 22 September 2017‎

Delete - There is not enough coverage in reliable sources, which means that we cannot fulfill our standard of verifiability. Thus, the article should be deleted. Ceedub88, this basically means that since we can't support the claims of the article with (enough) reliable sources, meaning that we can't confirm the information to the standard that we like. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 02:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Buck Clarke § Discography; a valid search term per WP:ATD-R. Cursory searches are not providing enough source coverage to qualify a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Buck Clarke. ATD L3X1 (distænt write) 03:21, 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 keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthijs Hardijk[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT. Jong AZ is not the same as AZ Alkmaar and does not play the major league. Kleuske (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jong AZ was promoted this season and plays in the Eerste Divisie this season. In turn, Eerste Divisie is listed in WP:FPL for the purpose of WP:NFOOTY. Cheers. Geregen2 (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 19:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 19:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 19:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Played 4 times so far in Eerste Divisie starting this year which is a Fully Professional League, so meets WP:FOOTBALL, small amounts of coverage easily found, mostly in dutch, but at 19 that is going to increase over time as he continues to play, likely to meet GNG per subject specific guidelines. ClubOranje^T 21:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:FOOTY has played in Eerste Divisie a WP:FPL .Note the subject is only 19 years and is actively playing .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 10:54, 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 merge to Thompson Autorifle. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BSA Autorifle[edit]

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

Non-notable British firearm, no reliable in-depth secondary coverage could be found. The cited book (Rifles of the World) mentions it extremely briefly as part of an entry on a different rifle. Created by the most recent spate of User:Ctway socks. ansh 666 22:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I'd be okay with a merge. Book was a little confusing to me but I think all relevant info supports Icewhiz's summary. ansh 666 09:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Thompson Autorifle (probably as a one/two-liner there) - this is BSA licensed production of this gun with some seemingly minor variations. There are some sources for this one of Ctway's creations. Note this is a possible copy-vio of [5].Icewhiz (talk) 07:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per justification of Icewhiz. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 09:10, 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) 17:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per IceWhiz. BSA is more popular for making motorbikes than guns. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:23, 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 is that the sources supplied are not sufficient to show notability of this person. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Garcia (basketball)[edit]

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

Contested PROD with no removal rationale. The subject hasn't played in any of the leagues listed in the sport-specific notability guidelines, and in fact has only just commenced his professional career at all. While there are references, most of the ones in English seem to be of the "local boy makes good" variety, rather than the level of coverage required for notability. I have no Macedonian abilities, so am happy to be proven wrong in relation to those references. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, there are plenty of references and information to meet notability guidelines, and he played at Wofford in college, which is notable in itself. I think it has merited and should not be deleted. Potatornado (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NHOOPS, linked earlier, playing at a given college isn't "notable in itself". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Playing in college or an a semi-professional league are not sufficient for notability. Trying to search for better sources is too hard, since he has a common name (I know a teacher with the name name). Bearian (talk) 23:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, I just had to respond to your comment here. It's not that hard to search for someone like this. Search for "Eric Garcia" plus "basketball," or "Eric Garcia" plus "Wofford," or any number of combinations. We do have enough information to narrow down the search results. That said, I don't know where the Macedonian league should rank in terms of notability. Garcia did work out for the NBA's Denver Nuggets [6], so he may at least be at the fringes of Wikipedia worthiness. Zagalejo^^^ 19:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article creator is notorious for creating poor basketball player articles for pretty much anyone (especially Americans/imports) who joins a Macedonian team – just check the user's historical contributions over the past few weeks/months. Eric Garcia did play in the NCAA and like Zagalejo mentioned, a simple google search of "Eric Garcia basketball" or "Eric Garcia Wofford" brings up plenty of material. However, a first-year player out of Wofford (I personally hadn't heard of this Division 1 school before) heading to Macedonia isn't a player I would create an article for. DaHuzyBru (talk) 03:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His team, MZT Skopje, will play in the ABA League (Adriatic League) which is one of the leagues listed in the sport-specific notability guidelines and Garcia already has a player profile on the leagues official website. That said, he hasn't actually played a game in the league as the season doesn't start until September 29 so technically he doesn't pass WP:NHOOPS yet. Is it better to delete the article now and resurrect it when he has one game under his belt or put this on ice until the season starts and see if he's still on the roster then? - Dammit_steve (talk) 10:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With football players, the solution seems to be delete-and-recreate-when if they're on the books at a team in the relevant league and just haven't played yet, so that suggests this is the same process here as well. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 02:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. This editor has been creating literally dozens of pages for players that often do not meet the WP:NHOOPS I have unreviewed a few and added notability tags that the creator has removed without adding sources that prove notability. I don't know if they know what the criteria are or just that they don't agree. If admin could hold off closing I will bundle them here if the participants agree. Domdeparis (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The editor did not seem to be aware of the notabilty criteria. On his talk page here, I asked him to go through his creations and check they meet the different criteria and if not blank the pages and add a db-g7 template to avoid having to go through them ourselves. Domdeparis (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment' Hello to everyone. I just want to apologise for the misunderstanding about notabilty criteria for any of those players, including Eric Garcia. But, about Eric Garcia I can assure you that he played for Wofford college, i`m very close to his present basketball club, so i know all the information about the player. You can just check with normal writing on Google that he played for that college. Also, the season in ABA league starts on 29 September, so...As i said to one of the users, I don`t have bad intentions when i create the articles. - Mkdbasket2014 (talk) 11:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MZT Skopje plays ABA League that is a completely professional competition. Asturkian (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NHOOPS doesn't mention being in a fully professional league as meeting the requirements. -DJSasso (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:NHOOPS does include the ABA League as one of the notable leagues. That said, Garcia has yet to play there as the first game is still 10 days away. As BigHaz points out above, there is precedence for football players at least to delete and recreate the articles when and if they play in notable leagues. I don't mind if that route is taken, but would raise no objections to wait a few days until the first game is over either. Dammit_steve (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup but like you said he hasn't played there yet. Per WP:CRYSTAL we must delete as anything (god forbid) could happen between now and then which has unfortunately happened in other sports in the past. I don't follow basketball articles as much but I know I always undelete articles of ice hockey players that were deleted that subsequently meet the criteria so I am sure there are admins that will do that for basketball as well. -DJSasso (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing I could find to meet WP:GNG or WP:NHOOPS. -DJSasso (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found some significant coverage from reliable sources here and here and here to meet GNG. As an aside, it feels very silly to me to choose to delete an article to be recreated when the season starts in less than 10 days. Garcia won't suddenly become notable as a result of stepping on the floor. The presumption of notability should be predicated on his career to date, in essence saying he is a notable player as proven by playing at a certain level league. If that isn't the case, then we should consider if the ABA League should be listed in the guideline. It may be that football chooses to delete and recreate articles in this instance but in my opinion that is plumb dumb. Why wouldn't you just wait the 10 days and see if he plays for them, as expected, if that's the hang-up? Rikster2 (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second is a blog so wouldn't be good for notability. The presumption of notability is based on if there are likely sources or not, and someone who has met nhoops likely has them. There has to be a line somewhere. That being said, an article that meets nhoops can still be deleted if it a good faith effort to find sources shows that none could be found. -DJSasso (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it's not exactly a blog in the classic sense. This is the Spartanburg newspaper site and on-line news is done this way in today's day and age. Essentially this is a sports feature writer in their on-line edition. But here is a replacement from the same paper if you prefer. Rikster2 (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even then we don't use blogs like this as they don't usually go through the editorial process which is required of a reliable source. Most papers draw a line between their news articles and their blogs online and those labelled blog are usually the equivalent of an opinion piece in traditional newspapers. All that being said the replacement is ok. -DJSasso (talk) 11:21, 22 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) 17:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete college and semi-pro is not enough for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's fully pro, not semi-pro. The ABA League (Adriatic League), where his team plays, is a fully professinal league and one of the leagues mentioned in WP:NHOOPS. Dammit_steve (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, good college players routinely meet GNG so that is not an acceptable answer on its own. Rikster2 (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rikster2 newfound sources. Dammit_steve (talk) 14:10, 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 keep. WP:NPASR applies. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ziadie family[edit]

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

Seemingly NN family with only two members worthy of a Wikipedia article. Seems to be more of an attempt at some limited genealogy than an article, with all references, centering around one member, Lady Colin Campbell. Toddst1 (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. See Eduardo Torres Maldonado, From Tropical Hell to Tourist Paradise: State Intervention and Tourist Entrepreneurship in the Mexican Caribbean (1997), p. 384:

As David Nicholls pointed out, a notable feature of the Arab migration is the way in which families have cut across national boundaries and they way that international links have been extended through marriage. Thus, he went on... The Hannas in Jamaica are related to the Deeb and Boulos families in Haiti, to the Laquis in Trinidad and to the Brimos, Zaccas, Fatta, Karrams and Ziadies in Jamaica itself.

Referencing: David Nicholls, Haiti In Caribbean Context (1985), p. 141:P

The Hannas in Jamaica are related to the Deeb and the Boulos families in Haiti, to the Laquis family in Trinidad and to the Brimos, Zaccas, Fattas, Karrams and Ziadis in Jamaica itself.

There are, therefore, at least a few sources referring to this family (among other families) as an entity in and of itself, without reference to its the one member for whom we have an article. bd2412 T 01:51, 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) 03:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needless to delete at this stage.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep Fairly notable Jamiacan family. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:26, 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. Seems like we don't have enough substantial sources here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tavares Bowens[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Appears to be a COI editor. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Power~enwiki: judging from the text, with its references to linebackers and running backs, this guy is involved with the sport of American football, whereas the notability guideline you cite above is for the sport of association football (known in the US as soccer). You may wish to pick a more appropriate guideline to cite..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources: [7][8][9] WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not ready to go either way right now, but the article itself needs editing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:33, 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) 03:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Currently it's an unsourced BLP, which is a serious (but seemingly resolvable) issue. Absent that difficulty, this is an article about an assistant coach who has worked under a notable figure - Gruden - and played for another comparatively notable one in the college ranks. I don't see anything establishing his notability per WP:NGRIDIRON, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it passes WP:GNG? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt he would do so if referenced, no. The references you've provided above are more of the "local boy makes good" variety, which I don't take as a GNG pass. Considering the lack of big-time media coverage for anything below the NFL and top-flight NCAA programs, I'm leaning in that direction. Happy to be proven wrong, of course, but that's where I'm leaning pending more developments. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:COI with editor, fails WP:PROMO and WP:NFOOTBALL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by --EC Racing (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC) EC Racing (talk • contribs) 13:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of those three reasons are necessarily reasons to delete the article. Do you think it passes WP:GNG? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Regardless of the poor state of the article and any COI issues (as well as the wrong NSPORT listed in the nomination), this guy only has some local routine and run-of-the-mill sports coverage (as in he did not receive significant independent coverage from multiple sources). As to his level of involvement in American football, his highest position was an assistant for the Arena Football League, arguably the third most covered pro league in North America after the NFL and CFL (also below NCAA Div. I). Assistants are specifically mentioned in WP:NGRIDIRON as to not be high enough to presume notablity. His highest head coaching position was in a very low professional league (with some teams more on the semi-pro side of the line). Yosemiter (talk) 13:30, 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) 17:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment WikiOriginal-9 no it does not meet WP:GNG and clear WP:COI with author. --EC Racing (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COI isn't necessarily a reason to delete the article. Also, you accidentally registered two delete votes. Thanks. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry WikiOriginal-9, edited from 2nd vote to "comment" --EC Racing (talk) 16:29, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Dean (writer)[edit]

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

The only source in the article is just a listing for the subject's book and does not contribute to establish notability. I could not find any in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources to meet our general notability guidelines and it also fails WP:AUTHOR Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I found some coverage of two of his books @ newspapers.com: [10] [11] [12] [13], especially the first one is quite detailed. There is also this from NY Daily News, a review by Kirkus Reviews, some coverage by NPR, some coverage about the proposed movie. No full-page article solely about him but I think sufficient non-trivial coverage to pass WP:BASIC. Regards So Why 10:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: Congratulations on finding those sources, I did not know about Newspapers.com. It seems like a great tool. As you point out the sources presented are not centered on him. In most cases they just mention him as the author. the first source that you found seems to be the only one that has some in-depth coverage beyond mentioning him as the author, it does not say much more though, just that he was a journalist writing his first book and some of his answers about the dog in the book. The sources I could find were either not independent or included just mentions of the subject and were only focused on the books or on the taking of the submarine. The sources you uncovered are a step in the right direction, since the first might be regarded as more than a trivial mention, but my feeling is that we probably still need more sources with in-depth coverage of the subject himself. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not Nom's fault, really. Nomination of a lightly-soruced, new article about a writer was not unreasonable. Thing is, Dean's new book is hot, hot, hot. (gNews search here: [14]). And he is a respected journalist, just needs a better article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:05, 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) 17:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage of this author's works in multiple reliable sources, which satisfies WP:AUTHOR #3. gongshow talk 01:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.L3X1 (distænt write) 03:31, 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. Sandstein 12:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pneuron[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH; article is promotional in nature. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:CORPDEPTH states "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." A majority of of the sources provide a level of attention that extends well beyond a routine announcement. The Huffington Post piece is a full profile. Forrester Research is a giant in their field. App Developer Magazine is a profile as well. Add to all the above a piece from Tech News World [15] that isn't cited in the article, and I think clearly Pneuron meets WP:CORPDEPTH. If the piece feels promotional in nature, that's easily fixed with an edit, as there is obviously enough useful information about the company to merit inclusion and not throw the baby out with the bathwater. ScooterSponson (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability for this company that announced at the end of August that it was ceasing operations. Article is entirely promotional and fails WP:SPIP. The Huff Post article appears to be the source of some of the text here and as such, this article is a copy violation. Not only that but much of that article, in turn, appears to use quotes from the website (available on the wayback machine) as inspiration. There is no independent opinion or analysis provided by the journalist on the company, just a summary of the marketing information already available on the website. It therefore also fails WP:ORGIND. The forrester.com report is not freely accessible and therefore I cannot comment on that. But typically, I would be inclined to allow analyst reports as meeting the criteria for establishing notability although I'm aware other editors are not so inclined. appdevelopermagazine.com article is typical churnalism and relies exclusively on information provided by the company complete with a photo of the CEO and a list of "Key Features". If fails as a reference for establishing notability since it is not "intellectually independent" and provides no independent opinion or analysis. Finally, your technewsworld.com article also fails WP:CORPDEPTH since it is more a mention-in-passing with no details on the company. The article itself even states "This is less about Pneuron than about the need to step back from time to time and check whether we are full of crap" since the article is really discussing "Big Data" problems in general. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don'tthink it's notable, but this must be removed in any case. It's a pure advertisement for the company. That it happens to be for a company that is going out of business doesn't make it less of an advertisement. DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 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) 17:40, 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. There's a substantial enough consensus to determine that, not being a UK tabloid, we shouldn't cover celebrity pregnancies just because they are celebrity pregnancies, and that there is just too little encyclopedic content to warrant an article before the birth. The pregnancy can still be covered in any other appropriate article, such as the ones about the prospective parents. Sandstein 08:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge[edit]

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

This is an article about a pregnancy. A pregnancy that has so far attracted less media attention than Beyoncé's recent pregnancy. Arguments that members of royal families are notable from birth are dubious; that they are notable from conception is absurd and cringeworthy. In case anyone wonders - no, the "third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge" is not yet in the line of succession.

We did have an article about Catherine's first pregnancy. It was hotly disputed, of course, and even deleted following a discussion. The article was soon recreated by another user, so I expanded it and later successfully nominated it for DyK. The recreation of that article was against consensus and the subsequent indifference of the community should not be used as a precedent for creating and keeping articles about this and other royal pregnancies. That child was called "the world's most famous baby" by The Washington Post. Its notability stemmed from the likelihood of him or her becoming the next monarch of 16 countries. This pregnancy does not involve "the world's most famous baby" or a future monarch.

Sources merely reporting the palace announcement of the pregnancy do not indicate notability of the pregnancy. With the first pregnancy, for example, we had The Daily Telegraph articles about the upcoming birth's expected impact on economy and tourism. That's what made the article at least marginally reasonable, as opposed to outright fancruft. Surtsicna (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no rational argument to have a page about a person who is not born yet. --Marbe166 (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And who is not even a person yet, according to British law. Surtsicna (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...and might never become one, in the unfortunate case of a miscarriage. --Marbe166 (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is pointless to have an article on someone who doesn't exist yet (and wont for 8-9 months!), who will be 5th in line to the throne. This information could be included in the Duchess of Cambridge's article without losing any encyclopaedic value. A Guy into Books (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. Gee, thanks for notifying me about trying to delete an article I created ... oh wait. This future person is obviously going to get a tonne of media attention during their lifetime, around the world ... it would be silly to delete it now and re-create it in twelve months' time or whatever. People will be looking for updates on the pregnancy, etc. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing here suggested I should have notified anyone; did I miss something? Anyway, creating an article now because "this future person" might attract attention in the future is simply too soon. The child might never be born. How morbid would it be to have an article about a miscarried embryo or foetus? This is why we don't have articles on stuff that might be notable in the future. Wikipedia contains articles about topics that are notable now. And what updates on the pregnancy can we expect? A sonogram? I doubt it. Surtsicna (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Ivar the Boneful: There is no requirement to notify the page creator for deletion discussions(though it is suggested and the Twinkle tool does so automatically); it is expected that persons interested in the status of an article will monitor it(especially if they created it). 331dot (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The same argument took place when each of the first two kids were still gestating. The bottom line is that news of this child will continue to be published and the birth will makes world-wide news and will have a huge impact on the British economy. Once the name is announced, the name of this article can and will be changed just like the other two. So why are we having this argument? Do people not have anything better to do? Eric Cable ! Talk 18:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What more news do you expect to be published before the birth? This is what the article about the second pregnancy looked like the day before birth: 1901 characters, barely anything new added since the creation in September. The article about the third pregnancy is now 1015 characters long, meaning we can expect about two more sentences. There will not be any more announcements, sex reveals, sonograms, etc. So what news are you expecting? The article about the second pregnancy also did not mention any impact on the British economy, nor does the article about Charlotte now mention her birth had any such impact. Are you speculating the third pregnancy will be different?
  We are having this argument because the subject of the article is the pregnancy of a princess. Two sourced, meaningful sentences that belong in another article. Only two. Yet people have nothing better to do than to knock together an article about a celeb pregnancy. Surtsicna (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I kindly ask everyone to take a look at Beyoncé#Marriage and children. It's a GA-rated article, and there is more info there about Beyoncé's pregnancies than there is about Catherine's in this article. Like Catherine's, her pregnancies made world-wide news and attracted media-attention throughout the gestation. Unlike Catherine's, announcements of Beyoncé's pregnancies apparently broke several world records. We nevertheless had enough sense not to turn that into articles. Here we have a mere announcement and congratulations, yet it is supposed to be notable enough for an article? If people here cite articles on Catherine's previous pregnancies as precedents, why not also cite restraint and common sense in dealing with Beyoncé's pregnancies? Honestly, I find it sad we've come to debating this. Surtsicna (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, as with the couple's second child, this unborn child became notable just as soon as the pregnancy was announced. So as keeping this article involves no apparent policy contraventions, there are no apparent sound policy-based reasons to delete it. Any doubt as to whether this unborn child is already notable can be quickly dispelled by looking at world coverage of the announcement. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The announcement of Beyoncé's pregnancy received such a world coverage that it entered Guinness World Records. Much more notable than this gestation, apparently. Surtsicna (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Beyoncé's pregnancy has no relevance in this discussion. The topic of the article here in question has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so per WP:GNG it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Catherine's previous pregnancies are being invoked as precedents. Why can't I bring up Beyoncé's pregnancy, which received far more coverage and even ended up in Guinness World Records? Surtsicna (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think we need actually precedents to see that we have a notable topic here, we have adequate significant worldwide coverage of the topic to satisy WP:GNG. It is informative though to note that the same happened last time too. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I disagree with your premise, however. What's covered is the announcement. Nothing else. The article consists of two sensible, sourced sentences, and judging by the coverage of the previous pregnancy, it's not likely to contain anything else. Beyoncé's announcement was covered far more, and it's informative to note that we did not make an article out of it. Double standards, obviously, and worth considering. Surtsicna (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep - rare exception of notability before birth. This child will be in the succession order for the throne and the world wide coverage of the announcement of the pregnancy can only be described as international on a large scale. I guess WP:GNG is appropriate as well.BabbaQ (talk) 00:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited (no, not even for "royal families" as a general rule, especially when the child is utterly unlikely to ever inherit any throne; there are literally thousands of minor members of royal families around the world who will never rule anywhere), and especially not for someone who isn't even born and thus doesn't even exist. --Tataral (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me how the baby does not exist when it has been confirmed by the couple that Kate is pregnant. Who is media and the Royal family talking about then? Is it nothing inside Kates belly? Do you know something I don't? That reasoning of yours is flawed. By the way, do you have a crystal ball to see if this baby is going to inherit the throne or not.BabbaQ (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK a person comes into existence at birth, as Surtsicna noted. An embryo/fetus isn't a person (especially not in the early stages of a pregnancy, at a point where the mother could still choose to abort the pregnancy for example). Other than that, what on earth has this non-person (embryo/fetus) done to be independently WP:NOTABLE? Also, in the extremely unlikely event that this hypothetical future person were to come anywhere near the throne in question at some point in the future, we would write about them at that point, if it became a relevant issue – in the same way that we don't write about every newborn person in the UK in the event that they might become Prime Minister 50 years later; we write about those who actually become notable when they become notable. --Tataral (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tataral: this article isn't yet about a born person, it is currently about an expected person. And, per WP:GNG, the fact that since the announcement, this topic has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" we can presume it to be suitable for a stand-alone article. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't rely on inherited notability - there is ample and significant worldwide coverage of the topic to satisy WP:GNG in its own right - so that argument doesn't hold. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly.BabbaQ (talk) 07:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of what? Of an announcement? That's what's in the article now. We literally have an article about an announcement. What else is covered out there that the article should contain? Surtsicna (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not an encyclopedic article about an encyclopedic topic, but a short press release about a British woman's health (that doesn't really contain much information either). Everything in this article would belong in the article about the woman. --Tataral (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep– Is this sort of thing going to happen for every child that Kate has? It's already been established by the precedent of previous AfDs that an article on an unborn child of Prince William is notable.Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about? There are no "previous AfDs" to serve as precedent for keeping this. The consensus reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge was to delete the Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge! Besides, this article is not about a child. Take a look at it; it's about a press release. Surtsicna (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Surtsicna: this article is not about a "press release", it is about an, as yet, unborn child, the announcement of which received significant worldwide coverage. And BTW, why didn't you also mention the deletion debate for child number two, raised by yourself on the date that pregnancy was announced? If you recall, it resulted in a "keep". -- DeFacto (talk). 22:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @DeFacto: Because Chessrat mentioned "previous AfDs". As if the article about Catherine's first pregnancy hadn't been deleted following a discussion.
      If the article is not about a press release but about a child, why is there nothing in it but the press release? Where is the sourced info about the child? If there is a significant worldwide coverage and notability, why doesn't the article reflect that? Why does it, instead, consist of two sentences that are entirely about the mother? On that grounds I challenge your claim that this unborn child has received enough coverage. Surtsicna (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I distinctly recall being involved with the article that became Prince George of Cambridge well before he was born.If a deletion happened it did not stick for long!LE (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Surtsicna: as I see it, the topic has to satisfy WP:GNG, and as the topic is covered by countless independent, secondary reliable sources from around the world, then whether it does, or not, hinges on the subjective question as to whether those sources provide "significant coverage". My view is clearly that they do, as they provide everything we could possibly expect to know at this stage. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @DeFacto: But what is the topic? If it's a child, why are none of the countless, secondary reliable sources cited in the article to support anything about the child? If a child is the topic, why is the entire article about a press release? Surtsicna (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @Surtsicna: the topic is the third child, currently unborn, and almost certain to become a named person. WP:VER doesn't specify either an upper or lower limit for the number of sources quoted, just that they are available, although there do seem to be four used in the article at the moment. I see an article about the third child, and can't see even a mention of any press release. The article will presumably grow if enthusiastic editors gets involved, but even as a stub it complies with all Wikipedia core article policies as far as I can tell. If you disagree, please explain which policies you think are contravened. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        You see a title that suggests that the article is about a child. The content is not about any child, however. If you truly see an article about a child, I must say you are imagining it because the article contains no basic biographical information, nothing that indicates that it's about a child, a human, a person. By law, it isn't even any of those things, but that's another matter. You do not see any mention of a press release, but you can see an announcement mentioned three times, once in all three sourced sentences and more often than the child itself. That in itself should be a red flag, but if you want me to name policies which this contravenes, I can easily start with WP:Article titles. The content of this article simply does not match its title. And if the article is indeed supposed to be a child, then it fails the entire MOS:OPENPARA. Surtsicna (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @Surtsicna: the title will evolve along with the content and compliance with MOS guidelines usually improves as more visitors get involved with improvements. I'm not sure that any of those are strong enough reasons to delete this stub though, especially as we know this topic will have legs. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I have already explained that this article will not grow. I cited the example of the article about Catherine's previous pregnancy/pregnancy announcement. Barely anything new was added to it from its creation shortly after the announcement to the child's birth. No further information was released by the palace or the gynecologist and we were unwilling to include media speculations about names, due dates, weight put on by the expectant mother, etc. No, this article will not comply with MoS guidelines for biographies as long as it doesn't treat an existing person. It cannot possibly comply with anything in WP:OPENPARA.
        When the child actually comes into the world, the article will be entirely revamped. Nothing currently in there will remain, judging by how we handled Princess Charlotte of Cambridge 3 days before and a week after she was born. There is absolutely no continuity between what the article looked like before and what the article looked like after the birth. Why? Because the article went from being about a pregnancy [announcement], part of another person's biography, to being an article about a new person, a biography. Surtsicna (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: this isn't yet a biography, it is about an unborn child. As a stub, it clearly won't conform with all the ideal style characteristics as recommended in the MoS guidelines you mention. None of what you say is reason for deletion per the WP:DEL policy. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, an unborn child. I.e. a pregnancy, and information about pregnancies of notable women belong to the article about said notable woman. --Marbe166 (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Marbe166: no, an unborn child is not a pregnancy. If it were, I might agree with you. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you resorting to arguing semantics already? How can this article (or anything else!) be about an unborn child if it's not about a pregnancy or vice-versa? Surtsicna (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Surtsicna: it's not semantics. As Marbe166 stated, the pregnancy is a state of the mother-to-be, however this article is (until birth) about an unborn child, which is a state of the child (not the mother) prior to birth - so this content is in the correct place - in a new article. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - You have been ignoring this plain and obvious fact all along: this article is not about any child. Its title suggests it is, but its content makes it clear it is not. Only 1 of the article's 5 sentences has "the child" as its grammatical subject (and it is the unsourced one). Only 3 out of 5 mention this child at all. The pregnancy announcement is mentioned more often than the "third child" itself. So tell me, please, what makes you think this article is about a child and not about a woman's pregnancy? Surtsicna (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        As I've said (more than once) this stub is the start of an article to be about an unborn child. After the child is born it will be about the child. Clearly if it was to be about nothing more than a pregnancy, it could be added to the mother-to-be's article. Can I respectfully suggest that as it's obvious the article needs improvement, that we devote our energies to improving it, rather than wasting it in this futile tussle - as we all know that even if it is deleted, this article will bw back again. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        And I've said more than once, and even proven citing the previous pregnancy article, that this stub will never be more than a stub. We will not get any more information from the palace. We will hear nothing from the expectant mother's gynecologist. The article about the previous pregnancy barely expanded from the announcement to the birth. It remained a stub, a few sentences about a pregnancy, until the child's birth, when it finally became a proper, sensible article. Why do you expect this one to be any different? Surtsicna (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Northernhenge (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to elaborate. Otherwise null and void.BabbaQ (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wrong, they clearly said they endorsed Surtsicna's argument above. That's quite sufficient and comments don't become "null and void" because BabbaQ disagrees with them. --Tataral (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Whatever the case, I too would like to hear more of Northernhenge's opinion on the matter. Surtsicna (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll quote from the nomination "This pregnancy does not involve "the world's most famous baby" or a future monarch. Sources merely reporting the palace announcement of the pregnancy do not indicate notability of the pregnancy." I see no evidence that the pregnancy, in itself, is going to change anything. The article about the child should be created when the child is born. There is no need for an article about a pregnancy unless, as a pregnancy, it becomes notable in itself for some reason. --Northernhenge (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Northernhenge: I think you're confusing pregnancy with unborn baby. Details about the former belong in the mother's article, but the latter topic is a valid candidate for a new article if, as in this case, notability is clear. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - BabbaQ (talk · contribs), I expect you're thinking of WP:DISCUSSAFD "The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments." However my recommendation was based on the nominator's arguments so I don't think I've contravened the guidelines. If I have, please leave a note on my talk page. Thanks. --Northernhenge (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a bio article about a zygote, is a tad premature. GoodDay (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- How?BabbaQ (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because it doesn't contain (and cannot contain) any bio information, I suppose. Surtsicna (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @GoodDay: surely that would only be true if the zygote was no already notable per WP:GNG - or is there another WP policy that would support your assertion even with notability established? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see this bio article as necessary, until the Duchess of Cambridge has the child. As a compromise, this article could be re-directed to Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete far too soon. Buttons0603 (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Far too many Drive-by Delete !votes here. And the extended rationales are still of the character IDONTLIKEIT. Or too soon, without further explanation. BabbaQ (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No, nobody here said they didn't like the article and nobody merely voted. Since there exists a frequently cited essay on notability called Wikipedia:Too soon, saying "too soon" obviously refers to precisely that, the idea that "sometimes it's simply just too soon for some topics to have an article". I do not see why you would misrepresent other users' arguments like that, especially since the too soon essay was linked early on. Surtsicna (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. this is a violation of NOT TABLOID. There is no possibility of any significant content until the child is born. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. While members of royal families are inherently notable, a miscarriage would not be; it's WP:TOOSOON to have this article. I oppose a redirect as the title is not a plausible search term; Catherine,_Duchess_of_Cambridge#Motherhood_and_children would be a plausible redirect target if it were. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Far WP:TOOSOON. I pray for a healthy pregnancy but there is no guarantee that this child will even be born. All we have here for the time being is tabloid news coverage.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because I really procedural oppose. The obvious ATD is a merge, which is what I proposed on the talk page some time ago. No crystal ball necessary, msot babies survive birth in this day and age.L3X1 (distænt write) 02:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge content into the article on the Duchess of Cambridge. bd2412 T 03:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Despite the current standings being 5-8 in support of deletion, after examining this discussion carefully, I have concluded that there is not yet a solid consensus. More participation will be welcomed, and I feel that this discussion will attract a lot of attention.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. KMF (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Catherine's page until the child is born. This is a notable topic, but about her pregnancy and not the unborn child itself. It can be covered on her page until the child is born. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Catherine's article. This is a difficult one. On one hand the child will be notable when they are born. On the other hand they may never be born because of any number of unforeseen events. On yet another hand none of the sources actually cover the unborn child (and how could they? The fetus is roughly the size of a lemon). Given these conditions, I think following WP:BLP1E is our best bet because 1) RS only cover this fetus in the context of Catherine being pregnant. 2) "Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge" is likely to remain a low-profile individual. (N.b. The child will be notable under the name they are given, not this pseudo-title). 3) Catherine's third pregnancy is likely to not be significant on its own. As such, the event of the pregnancy should be covered within Catherine's article, and then split off (at the very earliest) when we have a name for the child. menaechmi (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it might not be born. They may never have a third child.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speculative child (pregnancy may end in miscarriage, etc. - in which case this will clearly be non-notable standalong) - per WP:BALL. Does not meet notability guidelines. Writing about the pregnancy should be done at the mother (and possibly father). If and when the child is born, and assuming he/she meets GNG (likely), then we should create an article (which will probably be created immediately, though no harm to Wikipedia will be done if we wait until the sixth birthday or so - but it's a lost cause).Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! the other two children of this couple each had sustained prenatal articles--only if there is a miscarriage is deletion warranted.If born this child is guaranteed an article for life so no reason to postpone the inevitable.LE (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not temporary. If the embryo is notable now, then it would stay notable even in the case of a miscarriage. If the embryo is not notable now, as we believe it isn't, it doesn't warrant an article. Whether or not other "prenatal articles" existed is irrelevant; the first embryo article was recreated without consensus after the community decided it should be deleted, and the second never made it past a few lines about the mother's pregnancy announcement. Surtsicna (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The news coverage about the pregnancy clearly pushes the article topic above WP:GNG. WP:BALL does not apply here, given that the pregnancy, and various facts related to it (e.g. place in succession) are not unverified speculation, but well-sourced statements. The title may not be the best, since the "child" does not yet exist, but the pregnancy certainly does, and that's notable. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- So you suggest a title such as Third pregnancy of the Duchess of Cambridge? That would at least be fair (i.e. not deceitful) to the readers but it begs some questions. For one, if the article is about a notable pregnancy and not about a child, should we not retain the pregnancy article after the child is born and create a new article for the child? Past examples show that, no matter how notable people argued the pregnancy to be, everything about it was deleted once the child was born and nobody cared about the pregnancy anymore.[16][17] So are Catherine's pregnancies encyclopedically notable or are they just news? Yes, Catherine's pregnancy is in the news, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. If the plan is to delete all of this in a few months, why not delete/merge it now? Surtsicna (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The plan,obviously,is to develop the article into one about a live infant once the pregnancy comes to term,with the article aborted if it does not.I felt the List of British monarchy records was incorrect when it treated Queen Anne's 17 mostly-miscarried/stillborn pregnancies as giving her the most "children" of a queen regnant,but just as you don't count your chickens before they're hatched you don't discount your eggs before they're cracked.12.144.5.2 (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, that is obviously the plan. That means, however, that the present topic of the article (i.e. Catherine's third pregnancy) is not notable, since everything written about it now will be discarded once the pregnancy ends. If her illness and cancelled engagements were deserving of an article now, they would be notable in a year as well. But they are not and will not be. In other words, WP:NOTNEWS. Surtsicna (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Both articles of the couple's current children begin the bios with information on the pregnancy announcement.12.144.5.2 (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        This is what the article about Catherine's second pregnancy looked like few days before the childbirth. This is the same article two weeks after the childbirth. The morning sickness, cancelled engagements, good wishes and similar nonsense gone and nobody batted an eye. So what's your point? That this article should be reduced to the one sentence about the announcement, as that's the only notable part? Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS's Who's who. & WP:RECENTISM. All references were published on 4 Sept only. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 17:30, 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) 17:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously, per WP:NOT#NEWS. I know that that policy is routinely ignored by many editors in AfD discussions, but if it is to be ignored then a proper discussion should take place at WT:NOT to deprecate it rather than continue with the current situation where people repeat the "it got into loads of newspapers so we must have an article about it" nonsense. News reports, by any definition in the real world outside Wikipedia, are primary sources, so not sufficient to be the basis of encyclopedia articles. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Mfarazbaig made a good point about all references being published on 4 September only. That's precisely what makes this pure news. There is no on-going interest in the pregnancy. (There is no scholarly interest in it whatsoever, as far as I can tell.) She is pregnant, and that's it. I have shown that nothing new will be added - until the day this is all deleted anyway and replaced with more sensible content. I have also started to wonder if this is going to be relisted until the estimated date of confinement. Surtsicna (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well that was the day of the announcement, but there have also been various related items and stories in the media most days since. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - And why are these various related items and stories in the media not in the article? Is there any encyclopedic value in them? Surtsicna (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - The reason that none of them are in the article is that no-one has kept the article up to date. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Or could it be that none of the "related items and stories" belong to an encyclopedia by any stretch of imagination? The article about a child was created the day it was announced that an embryo was growing inside a woman's uterus; that certainly dispels the notion that there are no people keeping royalty articles up to date. Please prove me wrong. Surtsicna (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Articles are often enthusiastically created as soon as news breaks, but it isn't uncommon for them then to become out of date as the topic develops. That doesn't mean there's nothing worth adding, just that no-one has added it. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you stating that new information worthy of addition to this article is still appearing? Has the expectant mother or her gynecologist spoken out about the subject of the article (the pregnancy, the embryo, whatever)? Can you give us some examples? Surtsicna (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Several more pieces of information have now been added, and I'm sure there is more to come. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Everything that you have added is utter drivel: nothing like what belongs in an encyclopedia. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Prince William said they were not getting much sleep? Prince Harry gave thumbs up? Trending hashtags and bookies? Silly home birth speculations by infamous tabloids? I am not even complaining, as I have been arguing from the beginning that the topic and the content are not encyclopedic and this just emphasized that. Pure WP:NEWS, nonsense that will be deleted as soon as there actually is something to write about. Surtsicna (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        The subject is receiving almost daily cover, across the spectrum of media markets. That is almost unprecedented for an as yet unborn child. That goes to show just how notable the subject is and how much it is going to be covered. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Catherine's dietary habits receive daily cover too. You have shown what kind of publications cover this. Notorious tabloids, including (but not limited to) Daily Mirror and Daily Express. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." Prince Harry's thumbs up is not enduring notability. Neither is the rest of that junk. Surtsicna (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to the article on the mother until the child is born. There is very little we can say about the child at present and that will likely remain the case until it is born. If the pregnancy doesn't end in a miscarriage then the child will receive huge media coverage throughout his or her life and we can certainly have an article on him/her then, but if the pregnancy does end in miscarriage then I doubt we will maintain a standalone article at all. Hut 8.5 14:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Maybe this project needs something like the WP:TPHL for babies, "If the name and gender of a future birth are not yet known, the unborn child is very likely to have its page deleted from Wikipedia" -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You may have intended that as a joke, but it doesn't sound half bad! Surtsicna (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - A wise idea - how many BLPs contain information about the mother's pregnancy? --Pontificalibus (talk) 06:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't forget: this isn't a BLP, yet. Currently it's an article about an unborn baby. And because of the unprecedented amount of world media attention that this unborn child has received since the announcement, is a valid candidate for a new article in it's own right as notability is very clear. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - The WP:BLP policy clearly applies here, the living person being the Duchess of Cambridge. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure we have to comply with WP:BLP for information in this article about the Duke or the Duchess, or anyone else - but this article is specifically about an, as yet, unborn child, and not anyone else. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you joking? Where is the basic biographical information about the "third child"? The article is entirely about a woman's health. You could title it "2017 London earthquake" but its content would still show it's about a woman's health. Surtsicna (talk) 09:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I'm emphatically not joking. The article is clearly about the unborn child and the background to, impact of (including the effect on the mother's health), and reactions to, the existence of the unborn baby since the announcement. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. There is religious, philosophical, scientific and even political disagreement about if and when an unborn child becomes a living person in its own right, but pretty well everyone agrees that an unborn child is either a living person or part of its mother, who is a living person. Either way this is an article about a living person. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        The article is without doubt currently about the unborn child and will surely morph into an article about a born child if and when the child is born. I'm not sure either when WP:BLP applies to the unborn child, but it is of no consequence as the subject (currently unborn) satisfies WP:GNG anyway. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        So are you retracting your claim, which kicked off this whole subthread, that this isn't a WP:BLP? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Let me clarify what I meant there: it is that this isn't the classic biography of a living person - because the subject "person" is, as yet, unborn. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Let us do a count then. The purported subject of the article (the "third child") is mentioned 11 times; it is the grammatical subject of 5 sentences. The parents are mentioned c. 20 times; they are the grammatical subject(s) of 12 sentences. In what universe does that mean the article is about the unborn child rather than about the parents? Surtsicna (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @Surtsicna: the article is about the unborn child, and I cannot understand why you are doubting that. Clearly the parents, particularly the mother, are intimately involved in everything that involves the child, and that will remain the case for a long time after the child is born too. But that doesn't change the fact that the primary subject of the article is the child - the article wouldn't exist if the child didn't exist. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Delete The child doesn't exist. The fetus does. The child doesn't, in the eyes of the law, start to exist until the day it is born. Until then it is a part of its mother and any information about it can be placed in the article(s) of the parents. --Marbe166 (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I have given you the numbers which show that the article is primarily (or entirely) about the parents, so of course I doubt unsubstantiated assertions that it is about something else. Surtsicna (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HOAX. Just a simple WP:BEFORE D1 using the first two links on Google shows that this is a fake title. The first link uses future tense for the current pregnancy, and the second link states, "Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge (1833-1897) was the third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge". Editors have also testified that there is no intention that the current material is intended to remain in the encyclopedia, which in policy terms is both unencyclopedic and notnewspaper. Unscintillating (talk) 03:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete we should at least wait until after someone is born to create an article on someone. miscarriages can and do happen, and if this child dies before birth they will be non-notable. This is not to say we need an article when the child is born, but we clearly do not need an article at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we actually have the two notable sentences on the subject of this unborn child (whose sex seems not yet known) in the article on Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Having a seperate article on this person should at least wait until he/she can survive in some way seperate from his/her mother, and probably longer than that. Not every member of a royal family is default notable. Do we have articles on all living descendants of Elizabeth II? Georige V? at what point does it stop?John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I lost track of where the odd comment "most babies survive birth in this day and age" was. If the pregnancy is in as early a stage as some suggest, than no, in Russia the majoirty of babies die before birth. Actually, most conceptions results in spontaneous abortions (miscarriages, specifically very early term ones), but this pregnancy is almost certainly beyond that point. However miscariages up to time of birth, and still-births are still occurances, maybe not at levels seen in the 19th-century and earlier, but they do occur. At least in the US maternal mortality is by some measures higher than what is experienced for soldiers in a modern war zone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject to more than enough coverage, with further development a certainty. While a “merge and redirect” to mother is justifiable (is it the mother’s pregnancy or the baby’s gestation?), a separate article at this stage has the advantage of cleaner article histories. The pregnancy stuff belongs in the early history of the child’s article, not lost in the long history of the mother’s. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'll start with what I think is most important here, that is, notability is not inherited. This is an article about an unborn child, it's not an arguable position to say that the non-person (as yet) is notable. As it is, there isn't a guideline for dealing with the notability of people who are considered royalty, and, there is even less of that for a person who hasn't been born yet. In that regard I have to go with the most basic criteria available; People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. In this case, the subject of the article comprehensively fails all of the above. The person has not received any coverage independent of it's parents, the Queen, or any other persons, and, the pregnancy itself is the subject of the sources and not the child. Furthermore, WP:NOTNEWS, exists for the very reason this article does. This entire article is stitched together by minor press releases. I mean for god's sake; a) Early media speculations were that the baby will be born at St Mary's Hospital, London, were the couple's other two children were born. <- The media engages in WP:CRYSTALBALL big woop. b) On 7 September 2017, Prince George, the couple's oldest child, started school. Because of severe morning sickness the Duchess was unable to accompany George, who arrived at school holding just his father's hand <- random WP:TRIVIAL fact that has naught to do with the supposed subject of the article. and c) On the day of the announcement, bookmakers started taking bets on the baby's name. Alice and Victoria emerged as favourites <- are you serious? this is plain indiscriminately collected unencyclopaedic material. Take away all of the garbage from the actual article and you are left with no more than is present in the lede; The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are expecting their third child. Kensington Palace made the announcement on 4 September 2017 and the baby is thought to be due in March or April 2018. I don't want to say WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, but, there is naught in the article or in the sources presented to suggest that the subject is notable. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:17, 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 Edward VIII abdication crisis with the suggested hatnote Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdication of Edward[edit]

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

unnecessary index set article, for just 2 people DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Abdication of Edward. – Uanfala 09:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 09:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 09:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Nonsensical and unnecessary WP:LIST article (masquerading as an unnecessary disambiguation article) with only two entries and no possible future entries. Softlavender (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unneeded list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Edward VIII abdication crisis as primary topic and hatnote to Edward_II_of_England#Abdication. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whether this is a list, set index, disambigation page or a redirect there should clearly be something here. Peter James (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Edward VIII abdication crisis for convenience of searchers. Softlavender (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with redirect and hatnote per Patar knight above. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:06, 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) 17:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Edward VIII abdication crisis as the primary topic, and hatnote to Edward II of England#Abdication. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:24, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ulrike Reinhard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

doesn't meet WP:BIO CelenaSkaggs (talk) 10:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Nominating all the German authors you can find is fine, but this one is notable, there sufficient sources for WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 14:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She is certainly well-known for her skatepark. I've cleaned up the article a little and added the RS about the park. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources show she is recognized for her multimedia work and her enterprising skateboard part in India.--Ipigott (talk) 09:55, 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) 17:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Note that nominator seems to have abandoned their account. —Kusma (t·c) 09:06, 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. (non-admin closure) — Za wl 16:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Schramm[edit]

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

doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN CelenaSkaggs (talk) 10:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Significant coverage, even in the existing reference list. For your information WP:POLITICIAN is a secondary guidance which does not alter WP:GNG. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 14:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment The only notable thing that is listed is a single news event in multiple sources about her defending copyright to a book WP:BLP1E Other than that she was a member of one political party and then joined another, which fails WP:POLITICIAN. Fails WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by CelenaSkaggs (talk • contribs) 15:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:GNG does not require news on multiple aspects of her life, just "Significant coverage", which there was. Furthermore the English Spiegel link refers to earlier newspaper stories elsewhere covering other aspects of her, which enriches what readers can learn about her from this article, and could be used to expand the article. The topics of piracy, DMCA, and inconsistent politicians are important enough that readers deserve to be able to look up what happened in a general encyclopedia. Deletion efforts can go too far. Numbersinstitute (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable politician, massive press coverage when she was in the Pirate Party, dozens of sources to show WP:GNG are met at de:Julia Schramm. —Kusma (t·c) 09:26, 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) 17:36, 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) 19:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thierry Dubois[edit]

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

Struggling to find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG, and WP:PROMO — Preceding unsigned comment added by EC Racing (talk • contribs) 12:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Coderzombie (talk) 04:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not comply with WP:GNG. Zyc1174 (talk) 11:47, 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) 17:35, 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) 19:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elnaz Golrokh[edit]

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

Promotional. All but 2 references link to instagram photos. CelenaSkaggs (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:52, 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) 17:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. PROMO written by SPA loaded with sources mostly from instagram. Agricola44 (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another case of needing to delete because Wikipedia is not Linkedin. While Linkedin is most heavily associated with business processionals, it can also be used to promote artists, and that is what is occuring here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:19, 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. the wub "?!" 11:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cereal Killer Cafe[edit]

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

Very small, regional, business. Only 2 outlets. Do we document all small businesses? 89.202.245.164 (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor--above text is copied from article talk page. But this looks like a clear keep to me based on the breadth and depth of sources. --Finngall ^talk 16:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 16:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 16:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG, per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable; the size of the business is not a reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 06:52, 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) 17:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources have established the subject as a unique and notable cafe. These factors pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:09, 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 delete. ansh 666 19:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Krogmann[edit]

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

Tagged since 2011. WP:BIO CelenaSkaggs (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:50, 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) 17:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable blogger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 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) 19:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Gul Hassan Manjhoo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN .Lacks third party references. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 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) 17:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability indepdent of the party. Not even a source other than the party's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John Pack Lambert no reliable sources.Tipsygunny (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, although his political party (Jamote Qaumi Movement) maybe notable but it has it's own article. Excelse (talk) 05:41, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nadi Vahate (River Flows)[edit]

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

The article fails notability guidelines for films. The three major sources I can find are all passing mentions [18] [19] [20]. The latter two are not about the film at all but about its director. Few major reviews in independent, reliable sources. DrStrauss talk 13:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep film is notable. The page has issues.Shashi 1980 (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Striking sock vote, see [SPI]. DrStrauss talk 12:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 19:30, 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) 17:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Report: Page issues have been addressed. There is more to do. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

and WP:INDAFD: Nadi Vahate River Flows नदी वाहते Sandeep Sawant

Keep per this now released film having the (easily & quickly found) coverage to meet WP:NF in English and Marathi. IE: Times of India, Maharashtra Times. Certainly more can be found by those who LOOK. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as shown above. There is also some coverage using the name "Nadi Vaahate". Unscintillating (talk) 01:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rajendra P Kerkar (June 19, 2017), "'Nadi Vaahate' sets its lens on the beauty and bounty of River Mhadei", Times of India, retrieved 2017-09-25, On the concluding day of the Goa Marathi Film Festival at Kala Academy, 'Nadi Vaahate' has immortalized the beauty and richness of River Mhadei, the lifeline of Goa.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:NPASR applies. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Car App[edit]

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

Neologism / personal essay. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 19:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously a common term (check the Google web and news results), and a useful well-cited article. The only possible problem I see is a specific OS as the focus of the top section, which seems too NPOV and should possibly be copyedited to remove brand focus. On that note, should probably ensure that iPhone apps are included in the article and not just Android. Softlavender (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC); revised 08:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Writer's Comment. I will fix problems described above: will add iPhone apps and remove brand focus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SipleDailyUser (talk • contribs) 06:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Writer's Comment. I updated the article and included in it both Android and iOS apps. Please review it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SipleDailyUser (talk • contribs) 08:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Writer's Comment. The moderator has no more objections to the article. Can the message about deletion be removed from the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SipleDailyUser (talk • contribs) 08:07, 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) 17:13, 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) 09:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Krishnan (actor)[edit]

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

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources and no evidence that actor has played a major role in any film listed in the article. I may be looking in the wrong places, but a Google search for "Hari Krishnan" found nothing that establishes notability. Appear to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are few exclusive interviews sourced in the article. He has also been credited as "Hari" in films, I guess. Madras and Kabali are his notable films. Editor 2050 (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Editor 2050: Per WP:IV interviews are not generally considered useful for notability, as they are not independent of the subject. I tried but can’t find a single reliable source that talk about his role in either Madras or Kabali and I hope you are not mixing him with Kalaiyarasan Harikrishnan who played Tamizh Kumaran in Kabali also go with same name Harikrishnan. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep WP:IV is an essay not a policy, AFD is continually recognising interviews as notable sources where they are in reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking and also when they contain straight prose as well as an interview. Regarding WP:NACTOR he has third billing in an upcoming film and some fifth billings in released films which are reasonably prominent.Atlantic306 (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of course, I'm aware - I watch Tamil films. Sources aren't as freely available for supporting actors as they are in the Western World - but I have attempted to include as many as possible here. Editor 2050 (talk) 10:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Editor 2050 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Delete- At best he is a supporting actor with no work that has been notable, In my opinion until he does more prominent work this page is TOOSOON. FITINDIA 18:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: New sources and text has been added since this was listed. Editor 2050 (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of reliable references Shashi 1980 (talk) 15:29, 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) 17:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Myers (handwriting analyst)[edit]

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

BLP cited mostly to non-independent or tabloid sources. A search for alternatives finds the same. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This source seems suitable to me, if we could find another source discussing her in similar detail that may be enough. However I searched but could find nothing else. Lots of mentions of her, but no in-depth coverage.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete short apparences in TV as an expert in some subject do not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

T. L. Orcutt[edit]

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

Although this article has been around for seven years, and has many incoming and outgoing links, I am just unable to see how it satisfies WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. I'm looking for significant coverage of the author and/or his books and I'm not finding it. A Google search brings up many many directory listings and Wikipedia mirrors but nothing in-depth about the author.

Similarly, the articles about his books are heavy on plot detail and light on sources. So I will also nominate them as part of this process.

... discospinster _talk 20:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as no discussion has taken place.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that a total of six articles are nominated for deletion herein.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as no discussion has taken place.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 16:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:AUTHOR, WP:ACADEMIC or WP:OCCULTTAROTPROFESSIONAL. Additionally none of the books appear to be notable, I could find no significant coverage of any of them, so delete all of those too.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all do not meet any notability standards.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Multipoint Virtual Private Network[edit]

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

There are no independent sources, and seems to be no validatable notability Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple independent sources discussing the subject in depth e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 etc etc --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A simple WP:BEFORE-type search shows quite a few books and and scholarly articles discussing this type of VPN in some depth or as the subject of the article; Pontificalibus has linked some of these sources above. Searching for "Dynamic Multipoint VPN" yields even more results. Seems a clear pass of notability guidelines per WP:GNG. --Mark viking (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- Gpc62 (talk) 17:37, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR applies (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Social Distortion Fall 2012 Tour[edit]

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

Non-notable concert tour fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR, with only two references that are from the band's website and no longer work, and has been tagged as only having primary sources for four and a half years. Aspects (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to be a notable concert tour, got two sources [21][22], both are providing significant independent coverage to pass WP:GNG.Anoptimistix (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I have added the two ref which I gave above in the article [23]. Anoptimistix (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:20, 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) 16:45, 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. WP:NPASR applies. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan National Resistance Organization[edit]

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

not notable organization Mardetanha (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tentatively. The article is currently promotional, and the subject is itself a promotional organization. I am not familiar with the topic area and don't know if RUDAW.NET, e.g. in this source from the article, a Kurdish network, is independent of it or not. But it is not a fly-by-night / new organization; another source in the article is about its 10th year anniversary. It sorta seems okay/good to have an article about this organization, to me. --do ncr am 21:00, 9 September 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, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should be reformatted however it should not be deleted.--INDIAN REVERTER (talk) 23:21, 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) 16:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PASSES GNG.Platogrew (talk) 16:45, 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 Yale University#Student organizations. The most logical alternative. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yale International Relations Association[edit]

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

Delete per WP:ORG, most sources are self-published or not relevant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colestefan (talk • contribs) 20:27, August 2, 2017 (UTC)

Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I offer no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 16:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Consider this a combo article about a number of related programs. The Yale Review of International Studies is notable on its own (my judgment based on previous AFDs about student-run academic journals) but is covered here. There is an annual(?) Acheson Prize associated with that. --do ncr am 21:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article is entirely primary and affiliated sources when it needs significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) So let's see those sources, especially that the undergrad Yale Review of International Studies is independently notable... czar 19:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:16, 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) 16:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent Yale_University#Student_organizations (where it is mentioned by name but unsourced) as WP:ATD-R. No showing of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?), or put another way, there isn't enough secondary source content to do justice to the topic. czar 03:38, 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) 19:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Crowe[edit]

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

A BLP cited only to tabloid newspapers. A search for sources only returns self-published links and tabloids too. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BAND. Rogermx (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:07, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Royle[edit]

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

This was basically nearly all based on the person's personal linkedin account and twitter account. No sufficient evidence of notable. Was an outing issue aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article being deleted???? I don't get it. This was all the evidence and information I could find about her. Where else could I find more about her? This is not fair, I'm just trying to contribute with the page and not doing anything wrong. Her info was even on her personal Facebook account and now you're telling me that's no sufficient evidence?? Explain please? www.facebook.com/jennifer.royle User:Ceedub88 16:44, 21 September 2017

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article is based on three reliable sources, the first of which starts as "Jen Royle is an Emmy winning sports reporter ..."--Ymblanter (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. She may not be a high-profile figure now, but she was at one time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep same per the above.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only reliable sources so far are related to Boston. That shows the subject is not notable. Three sources is too little. It will remain a stub or will be deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying Boston sources are unreliable? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are reliable. Just three is not notable enough. QuackGuru (talk) 23:26, 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. Black Kite (talk) 09:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Cosgrove (Gaelic football)[edit]

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

Appears to have attracted some attention as a referee due to a controversial decision. Sources only make peripheral mention of the subject. Lack of significant in-depth coverage. Mduvekot (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. All sources provided in the article are trivial/ROTM mentions (where the subject is mentioned in passing). There wouldn't appear to be any sources which meet SIGCOV (where the subject is the main topic of the source material or otherwise covered in detail). Guliolopez (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (GAA Football) does not indicate he was most notable as a "footballer", as per "john pack lambert". He has clearly been influential in a notable teams development in coaching and organisation. He is also a published author. To delete the article would be backward. Wikipedia is here to inform and educate not to erase potential knowledge. Thanks. Moygownagh (talk) 20:57, 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 delete. Sandstein 08:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

W. Kündig & Cie. AG[edit]

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

Non-notable company. I refer editors to the discussion taking place on de.wiki. All sources in the present article are linked to the companies own website or files uploaded (and since deleted) from de.wiki regarding the company's business filings. No reliable sources to be found, and apparently none to be found by the de.wiki editors either. Also, note the article is published by the company itself, as an attempt at self-promotion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - advert. Even the one source which isn't self-generated, german-brand-award.com, looks to be one of those awards where the number of wards depends on the number of entrants (everyone's a winner!). Cabayi (talk) 16:04, 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) 11:59, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medulla Oblongata Gators[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Non-notable team, per WP:NCORP and WP:NSPORT. No significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources found. --Animalparty! (talk) 11:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Animalparty. It doesn't currently meet WP:NSPORT. Dolotta (talk) 13:05, 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) 11:59, 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) 19:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Stone[edit]

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

No indication of notability. I reorganized and sectioned the article to separate his career from his charity work, but the only third-party reference to his career is a mere mention, most of the article was and is sourced to IMDb and his own website, and I was unable to find the other Toronto Star reference referred to. A search for additional references also came up empty. I removed the list of stars endorsing his charity work as not contributing to notability, and the praise received for that does not in itself rise to the level of a major award that would confer notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-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) 11:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Talent agent is not an occupation where we extend an automatic presumption of notability just because the person exists, but this is not reliably sourced well enough to get him past WP:GNG. I actually was able to find the other Toronto Star reference on a ProQuest database search — but it doesn't assist a GNG pass, because it glancingly namechecks the existence of Rocky's Kidz but fails to be about it, and doesn't even mention Rocky Stone as a person at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 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) 11:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally unnotable as an actor, and not notable as a talent agent either. Talent agents need actual coverage to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find in-depth coverage to show that this person meets WP:GNG. gongshow talk 01:22, 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 merge to Inspiral Carpets. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Gill[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BAND: "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." None of his activities outside of the band are notable. --wooden superman 11:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Not wikipedia notable outside of his band. The previously AfD debate, in which no consensus was reached, was held in the wake of his suicide, which was widely reported in the UK. With the news being so fresh and widespread there were many editors voting keep. Now that things have cooled down a bit one can more objectively judge that there simply aren't the kinds of independent, third party references outside of his role in the band that establish stand alone notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Inspiral Carpets. Whether or not you believe there should be a standalone article here, the idea that all this content should just disappear is simply ridiculous. --Michig (talk) 06:24, 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) 11:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge agree should merge to Inspiral Carpets--EC Racing (talk) 15:33, 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. Sandstein 08:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Frost (fashion blogger)[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO CelenaSkaggs (talk) 10:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:PROMO — Preceding unsigned comment added by EC Racing (talk • contribs) 12:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 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) 11:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's no corresponding article on German wikipedia, though evidence that the same editor attempted to put one up a few years ago; this all confirms suggestions that the subject is not notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:06, 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 speedy delete. G5: creation by banned user (Billy Hathorn) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

U. T. Downs[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Local politician that fails WP:NPOL. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:48, 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) 09:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Bone[edit]

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

Contested Prod with no reasons given. Initial concerns still remain. 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) 11:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 11:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I didn't give a reason because it was a BLPPROD - all that is needed for removal is to supply a source, which I did. He may not play in a fully professional league but Shamrock Rovers F.C. are one of the biggest and most successful clubs in the League of Ireland and there was a fair amount of coverage from the Irish papers when he was on trial and then when he signed for them: [24], [25],[26], [27], [28]. I would argue the focus on his recovery from testicular cancer is non-trivial and non-routine coverage.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this instance, the recovery from cancer would fall under WP:BLP1E in my opinion. The other sources you have provided seem to me to be routine transfer talk. Furthermore, some of the sources seem to be less reporting about the player, but just regurgitating quotes form his manager, which I would say make them more WP:PRIMARY than anything else. Fenix down (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a couple more sources from FourFourTwo.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is just a short interview, there's little encyclopedia c9ntent and the sec9nd source doesn't even discuss him at all. Fenix down (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the notability guidelines for footballers, which footballers have to meet unless they have clear, non-football related notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:29, 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. It's snowing. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meg Patterson[edit]

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

Not a notable person. Alexbrn (talk) 11:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Err... is that it? “Not a notable person”. Not exactly attempting to explain in what ways she fails our notability guidelines. I would have thought that a British Medical Journal obituary might have carried some weight. Or did you just not bother checking? Her BMJ obituary goes so far as to claim that she ought to have won the Nobel Prize (maybe pushing it a bit)Mais oui! (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of notability is a reason for deletion. Apparently no source has "significant coverage" of Meg Patterson, so she cannot be notable in Wikipedia's terms. Alexbrn (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on what you consider "significant". The sources provided below seem significant to me. Diego (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Books search for "Meg Patterson" "Eric Clapton" and "Meg Patterson" "Pete Townshend" reveals pages of stuff. Can we WP:SNOW close this now? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thus Keep. merge and redirect the content with the article of the notable person she was related to. Diego (talk) 11:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She was awarded an MBE but her husband wasn’t, and yet he is notable, and she isn’t. Hmmm... go figure.Mais oui! (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Keep after finding several newspapers mentioning her. [29][30][http://www.wnd.com/1999/08/3778/] It seems that nominator failed to perform a proper WP:BEFORE search for "Meg Patterson, neuro electric therapy". Diego (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed look and there are indeed "mentions". But mentions don't constitute notability. "Neuro electric therapy" is more notable (though not enough for an article IMO) and we already have a redirect for that. Alexbrn (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WND article (assuming it is RS,and I have never heard of them) would pass muster, but we need multiple RS giving in depth coverage to establish notability, not just one article and a few passing mentions.Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No WND is not RS [31].Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And how about Wired and The Scotsman? The latter is an in-depth article about the person, and the former provides a notability-conveying assertion (not merely a mention in passing), and a link to UNODC's website where a report by Patterson was published. Diego (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Scotsman piece is hardly about her (not "directly and in detail"), but is about the therapy. This suggests a brief mention of this person may be due at our Cranial electrotherapy stimulation article, but it's not going to be possible to make a credible article by scraping together mentions. Alexbrn (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She's also described in this paper as "In Britain, the best known exponent of this sort of approach in the management of withdrawal", so arguably she passes WP:NACADEMIC. BTW, Notability doesn't require that the articles themselves in RSs are directly and exclusively about the topic, just that its coverage is significant. Diego (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wired (on sentence about her, about as trivial as it gets), the Scotsman (about 5 sentences (her husband gets almost as many in this article), the article is about NEt , not her). Find another couple if sources with the depth of the Scotsman and we may have something.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence in question at Wired is Dr. Meg Patterson invented Neuroelectric therapy and contains a link to her work published by a United Nations organization. I wouldn't call that "trivial"; so I suppose we just will have to agree to disagree. Diego (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but NET is quackery.[32] And what this article is (or would be) is a coat rack for it. I wonder if there's a topic to be unearthed on the historical place of electric shock therapy in religious thinking? Alexbrn (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This properly referenced sentence, which helps established her notability was removed, twice, with no attempt at explanation in the Edit summary. It is indicative of an attempt to downplay the significance of this woman. (“She established that electro-acupuncture analgesia, usually applied to control pain post-surgery, could also significantly ameliorate the symptoms of opiate withdrawal.”)Mais oui! (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirectThe only source is actually about her husband.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. That is not “the only source”. There are lots of sources. But that was the only one I managed to get up before the page received a barrage of attacks, including the removal of properly referenced material establishing notability.Mais oui! (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I can only judge on the ones I can see,not the ones that I have not seen. If it did not have an inline citation it was not "properly referenced", and the only inline citation I can see is not about her.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It did have an inline citation, but was removed, twice, with no explanation in the Edit summary. You clearly do not understand how AFD works: it is our job to assess the notability of the *topic* (ie. Meg Patterson). It is *not* our job to take the fact that the article is only a stub as some kind of evidence of non-notability. Lots of notable topics only have stub articles.Mais oui! (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked for sources and have not found any. And in an AFD if you cannot find sources you vote for delete or merge. As I said I can only see one inline citation ever in this article, and it is not about her. If there was another please post it here.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she seems mostly known for WP:FRINGE stuff, but that nonetheless counts as being known for something. This passes WP:GNG, and should be kept. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find some sources? Alexbrn (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per W:BIO, this person is notable because she was awarded both an MBE and a FRCSE; a cursory internet search pulled up a People Magazine article written about how Boy George used her approach in the 80s for heroin detox and the controversy involved. To properly reflect notability, the page needs to have a source other than her husband's obituary. --Blueclaw (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yet her BMJ obituary makes no mention of an MBE.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A mention of her supposed "heroin detox" method doesn't count as significant coverage of the person, does it. Alexbrn (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on whether it was a passing mention or an in depth article about her.Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. Perhaps Blueclaw can furnish us with a link? It appears that "NeuroElectric Therapy" is more notable than its inventor[33] - though is pure nonsense. Alexbrn (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mention the People Magazine article because it indicates that she entered the public zeitgeist at some point, which means that there is likely other information available to write a satisfactory article beyond somebody else's obituary. Her having an MBE and a FRCSE already meets the criteria to keep a biography article. It doesn't matter that her scientific/medical contributions are now regarded as more of fringe than fact - MIT scientists Stephanie Seneff and Peter L. Hagelstein both have pages in spite of their contributions being debunked. --Blueclaw (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The bio at the bottom of this piece in the Scottsman verifies her MBE in 1961 and her FRCSE at age 25 for her work in India. It also identifies her as "one of Scotland's most renowned medics of the last 50 years". In addition, her obit from BMJ was also printed on the National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine site. Whether or not NET is quackery, she meets GNG. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per Mais oui! and Grand'mere Eugene, the sources they have found in the BMJ Journal and The Scotsman demonstrate that she meets WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies professional notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She got Pete Townshend off heroin - what more do you want? There are two pages in Dave Marsh's biography of The Who that cover his stay at Meg's clinic, so I've dropped that into the article. I dare say any decent Eric Clapton source will give a paragraph or two over to her as well. And she cleaned up Keith Richards too, so as a result of this woman, we've got The Who, The Stones and Clapton all touring as of 2017 (I'll leave whether that's good or bad to the reader, but at least it's happening!) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:24, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American ISIS fighter[edit]

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

Wikipedia is NOT a news paper. This article relies on speculation and does not even identify the individual in question. The notability of this individual cannot be assessed by anonymous sources or speculation. CommotioCerebri (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Bobherry Talk Edits 12:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC) Changing to Weak Keep Bobherry Talk Edits 13:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- First, this nomination shows all the signs of a bad faith nomination. Nominator recently started this wiki-id, after editing largely or entirely using anonymous IP addresses. They started this wiki-id after I explained something to an IP contributor. They said I hurt their feelings, and since then almost all the edits they have made, using this wki-id are reversion of edits I made, comments on my contributions, and five nominations to delete articles I started. The assumption of good faith is not a suicide pact, and their behavior has established that these nominations for deletion are not motivated by a desire to improve the wikipedia, but rather is a serious violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND.
Keep -- Of course, knowing this individual's name is desirable. And we should know it as soon as the Center for Constitutional Rights files a writ of habeas corpus on him. But not knowing an individual's name, or not knowing their real name, has never been a bar on creating an article on someone. We have an article on False Geber, an important figure in the history of Science, the first person to record the technique for isolating Sulfuric Acid -- even though we not only don't know his name, we don't even know his nationality, religion, occupation. He did something significant, notable, that authoritative reliable sources commented on. If the Unabomber was still anonymous, still at large, who would question having an article on Unabomber?

CommotioCerebri claims the article relies on anonymous sources. In fact I quoted several authoritative, reliable sources who were notable enough they had wikipedia articles of their own: Karen J. Greenberg, Spencer Ackerman, Matthew Waxman. The Pentagon official who was the spokesman in this matter, is a Major in the Marines. He hadn't been the spokesman of any other incidents I had followed, soI didn't bother including his name. This does not make him an "anonymous source", for all conventional interpretations of the term "anonymous source". Geo Swan (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've been critical of some of Geo Swan's articles on related topics over the years, but this is clearly a highly notable topic. The recent capture of this person has attracted significant coverage in reliable sources, and it can be reasonably assumed that this will continue. I'd note that an alternative to a straight deletion here (if the discussion goes that way) would be to merge and redirect to Foreign fighters in the Syrian and Iraqi Civil Wars#United States or similar. Nick-D (talk) 09:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the AfD might have been spared and notability more clear two-three weeks from hence - this individual is clearly notable. And will doubtlessly notable for standalone (unless after being named it will be someone with a wiki article, in which case we will have a merge). Holding as enemy combatant vs. treason charge is also an interesting legal quandary. Ample sources.Icewhiz (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A future upmerge or similar might also be in order if the legal case is more significant than the individual or it turns out that there are multiple such individuals and they're not individually notable per WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E, but the current tile and scope seems fine for now. Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 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. Sandstein 12:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guild Wars (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Orphaned dab page that seems redundant with Guild Wars which includes a list of relevant topics. Ham Pastrami (talk) 10:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect. Entire disambiguation is included in Guild_Wars#Publications. I don't see any reason for this disamb's existence. tonyxc600 comms logs 15:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing here that isn't also at the primary topic. (Redirect would be fine too, except for leaving behind a useless redirect!) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally pointless, as it only contains the Guild Wars series of games._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a perfectly valid search term for someone who knows there are multiple installments in the Guild War series. Someone who just wants the individual games in the series shouldn't be forced to go to the series page when they don't want that. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:40, 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 as expired WP:PROD ansh 666 19:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Multcloud[edit]

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

Yet another web startup idea with unclear notability and a lack of significant secondary attention paid to it from independent media. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:37, 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 nomination withdrawn. Thanks to those whose google-fu was better than mine. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia Lucy[edit]

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

This article is cited to our "old favourites" of The Sun, the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror and a search for sources shows the same (eg: "The Voice babe strips off to pose with giant rabbit"). That's just not good enough for a BLP. I tried to cleanup some of the worst offenders some time back but was reverted for no reason. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteWill.iam may have claimed he's going to turn her into a star but he hasn't actually done so yet. Zero appearances on any music chart. Her appearances on the X Factor and The Voice can be covered in the respective articles on the shows – no need for a standalone. About the only coverage I can find that isn't tabloid is that she's appearing in panto in Northampton in December.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've deleted the tabloid sources, there was definitely an issue with the sourcing. The coverage that I found and added was from The Independent, Telegraph, Evening Times, Radio Times, as well as local coverage in Romford Recorder, Wilmslow Guardian and Brentwood Gazette. I think that would count for WP:GNG: significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. There is a significant amount of coverage in national publications, but is it in depth? That's certainly questionable, but as per ~~WP:GNG~~ WP:BASIC, the amount of sources added together meet it. She also meets WP:ENT #2, as she gained national coverage for her roles in multiple notable shows, in this case X Factor, The Voice and TOWIE, three very well-known shows in the UK. Also Pawnkingthree and Ritchie333, why have you voted for deletion rather than a redirect to her series ofThe Voice, which is the show she is best known for? That is a clear WP:ATD, and if it did turn out that she was not notable but maybe it was WP:TOOSOON, the content would still be in the edit history. I do think it passes the threshold though, just. Boleyn (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Boleyn: I came across most of those sources in my own research; my problem is that they don't seem to amount to "significant" coverage - they are mainly trivial mentions by TV reviewers of the X Factor or The Voice, and I don't see why a brief mention of her at The X Factor (UK series 10) and The Voice UK (series 5) is not sufficient. The problem with a redirect is deciding which target - a case could be made for both of those shows.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pawnkingthree. I meant to link to WP:BASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. That's not a guarantee of notability, but there are numerous articles on her in national publications for four reasons: being a stand-in for Fergie in the Black Eyed Peas, coming second in The Voice, getting a lot of airtime on The X Factor and being in TOWIE. Getting coverage for these different things also confirms WP:ENT #2. As for WP:ATD, I think The Voice, where she came second, is the clear primary over TOWIE and The X Factor, where she failed to make the final 24. Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia:Notability (person) says a first, second or third place win in a major music competition qualifies for N. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, WP:MUSICBIO #9. I'd missed that one, well done, Atsme. Boleyn (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep as she meets WP:MUSICBIO.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333, have the arguments convinced you to consider withdrawing the nomination or do you think she doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO #9? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:20, 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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Betowski[edit]

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

BLP that has been here for 8 years without any sources. He appears to be an artist who has exhibited, but that doesn't seem enough to justify an encyclopedia article. I couldn't find coverage of him in reliable sources. Michig (talk) 09:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal Keep He is mentioned in lots of respectable refs, even making it into the German Lonely Planet guide to Cornwall, and Country Life thought he was "well-known" in 1992. But for extended coverage I can only find this from the regional paper online. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Wilkinson (golfer)[edit]

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

Non-notable golfer. Doesn't satisfy WP:NGOLF. Has played just 1 event which carried OWGR points, the Essential Costa Rica Classic on the 2017 PGA Tour Latinoamérica and missed the cut (see http://www.owgr.com/en/Ranking/PlayerProfile.aspx?playerID=23225). Nothing obviously notable. Nigej (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NGOLF....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:41, 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) 09:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NGOLF.Platogrew (talk) 16:49, 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. ansh 666 19:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Fortunati[edit]

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

This is a tricky one. This man is obviously a living, real person and he has clearly released close to a dozen albums on an actual (albeit small) label. However, the only references are to Discogs.com, an album/track listing site.There is also, a circular reference back to this article (in other words, the article references the article, which references the article, which ... etc.).

I have checked Google Books and found no deeper references to *this* Michael Fortunati (some unrelated Michael Fortunatis). I have checked JSTOR and found no references to this Michael Fortunati. I have checked Google News and found no references to this Michael Fortunati. I have checked newspapers.com and found no references to this Michael Fortunati. The only RS I can find is this BBC artist reference page (https://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/7c847428-9a77-4977-b8d6-1a021b9ab967) which, again, is just a track listing.

Since he doesn't meet the criteria for WP:MUSICBIO, and in the absence of even a single source which provide biographical coverage (as opposed to merely proof of life), I think this needs to be deleted. Chetsford (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails WP:MUSICBIO lacks additional sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EC Racing (talk • contribs) 12:58, 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) 09:10, 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. ansh 666 19:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Makida Moka[edit]

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

Subject of article fails WP:GNG & WP:NACTOR She has not been discussed in-depth by reliable sources and a Google search for her leads only to her social media applications. I say a strong delete is best applicable here Celestina007 (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator this article fails GNG and NACTOR. Donald1659 (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Exactly what Donald1659 said & From continued research on subject of our discussion we see an WP:TOOSOON situation, failing very woefully as per WP:SIGCOV. She is mentioned very briefly in a reliable Nigerian media source I'm aware of this fact, but that's just that. A mention isn't justification enough for a stand alone article. Let us use the analogy ; "Billy, an upcoming actor is dead" Etc. & thats just that.

There is No indepth converage from Nigerian reliable sources about her or her "supposed" career. I propose it be deleted & be re-created when She has received more "significant coverage" from reliable sources as WP:GNG Celestina007 (talk) 03:42, 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) 09:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Subject of article does not possess primary qualifications to prove true notability as there is no true significant coverage of her as per WP :GNG or WP:SIGCOV she is barely mentioned in passing. It is as though a fan of hers oblivious of Wikipedia polices and guidelines on notability created this page. A delete is best appilcable, a rough but subtle way of determining notability of an individual is through a Google search of which only links to her social media accounts are provided as results & brief mentions. I say a delete is to be made until she truly becomes notable & worthy of a stand-alone article on the encyclopedia. Celestina007 (talk) 01:00, 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 merge to Primavera (software). (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

XER (file format)[edit]

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

Not a notable file format. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is suitable redirect target (article about Primavera application). Pavlor (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Primavera (software). I have not been able to find much about the P6 exchange format that isn't tutorial how-to material. It does not seem to meet notability threshold. The fact that it is an exchange format for Primavera databases is verifiable, however. Merging a sentence to that effect in Primavera (software) would provide needed context and be of due weight. Redirect would be in principle OK, too, except that XER is not mentioned in the target article. --Mark viking (talk) 03:40, 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) 09:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

merge. Article indeed of questionable notability. Adding a section to Primavera_(software) seems to be logical. tonyxc600 comms logs 14:55, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Man in the Mirror (MCskill ThaPreacha Song)[edit]

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

Song for a rapper whose main article was deleted. Talk page raises doubts about non-notability, so I'm bringing this to AFD instead of CSD. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has sources that are independent of the artist. Sources like The Nation, Nigeria Entertainment Today and HipHopDX amongst others are definitely independent of the artist. And i Reached out to the admin Sarahj2107 (talk · contribs) who deleted the artist main article regards recreation but no response yet.

MustaphaNG (talk) 11:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 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) 03:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The song fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. It didn't win nor was nominated for any notable award in Nigeria, didn't chart on any country's official music chart, and wasn't critically reviewed. All of the sources in the article are promotional pieces meant to promote the single. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 06:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When did sources like The Nation and Nigeria Entertainment Today become promotional websites? Sometimes i think i do not understand WP policy. Fine, it hasn't charted and not 'yet' won an award but saying all the sources in the article including those two sources are promotional pieces to promote the single? Sigh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MustaphaNG (talk • contribs) 18:59, 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) 09:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A9 —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since article meets GNG and includes reviews from reliable sources. Stanleytux (talk) 10:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added two new sources to the article. An offline source from Vanguard. I can provide a photo of the article if needed. And the second one [here] lastly, Another reliable source Channels TV mentioned the song [here] this article passes GNG MustaphaNG (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MustaphaNG: The sources you added are not discussions or reviews about the song. The second link you provided in this AFD is a press release about the song's release, not a source discussing the song. The channels TV link you provided isn't about the song. It is simply highlights of the rapper's interview with Channels TV's Entertainment News. Please upload a picture of the Vanguard source to Commons. As it currently stands, the song isn't notable and doesn't meet anything outlined in WP:NSONG. Contrary to what Stanleytux said, none of the 9 sources in the article reviewed or discussed the song. They are all press release info about the song. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 10:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace1608: No way all the 9 sources in the article didn't review the song, no way. RAPstation reviewed the song, The Word is bond reviewed it, Nigeria Entertainment Today did, EARMILK did, same with the Vanguard source. And by the way, i never said Channels TV link is about the song and as you can see that's why i never added it as a source in the article. i simply said they 'mentioned the song' as it was worthy of mention. Here's a photo of the Vanguard Newspaper reviewMustaphaNG (talk) 13:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MustaphaNG: There's no need to go back and forth. None of the references discuss or review the song. Thewordisbond.com source is not a review of the song, just a press release. The Ear Milk source isn't a review of the song. Same thing goes for the Nigeria Entertainment Today source. This particular song isn't notable to have a separate article. I repeat, it hasn't been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts, hasn't won one or more significant awards or honors, hasn't been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 04:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace1608: Yes, you're right! No need to go back and forth. You made your position clear and i made mine very clear too. You never mentioned the Vanguard review or the RAPstation review but its okay. AfD is still open to all. MustaphaNG (talk) 09:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree Versace. The article is well sourced, references are sufficient, better than a lot of articles on Nigerian songs I have come across here on Wikipedia. I don't see where the magazine and news agencies indicated that the content is a press release. No italics showing this. Respected online magazine HiphopDx is not known for republishing content from the web or record label and even when they do, they always indicate it one way or the other. The Nation article was written by some reporter probably working for the news agency. The NET article was written by Ehis Ohunyon, an editor of the entertainment newspaper and filed in Music, TV. Normally, news websites file press releases in Press Release category. Stanleytux (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Stanleytux: Press releases are simply announcements of things that are considered newsworthy. The Hip Hop Dx source is simple an announcement about the song, nothing more. The creative-hip-hop.com, The Nation.com, and thewordisbond.com sources are simply announcements about the music video for the song. Including the names of some of the writers responsible for these announcements isn't relevant here. Adding their names doesn't prove that this song is notable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 04:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Stanleytux: Have you clicked on any of the sources you pointed out so you can find out that the links are merely three paragraph press releases which does not discuss the song or the artiste in details. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I had gone through the sources before I even commented here. The article meets NSONG. The sources are reliable enough and independent of the subject. Stanleytux (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not discuss or review the song. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 04:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews are there, clearly visible for those that read. Check the section Reception. That there are different writers expressing what they think about the song. Stanleytux (talk) 06:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MustaphaNG You should have ensured the biography for the artiste was in main-space before creating articles for his songs and albums. I understand the article on the subject was deleted last year via an AFD discussion but that doesn't mean it can't be recreated, as long as it is done appropriately. The AFD was even divided so it wasn't a straight delete per se. Wikipedia articles for songs and album without an artiste page is pointless to me. Darreg (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Darreg: Your reasoning is wrong here. There is nothing "pointless" about creating articles about songs or albums whose artist doesn't have a stand-alone page. WP:NALBUM clearly states that an album or song "does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline". It is wrong to tell MustaphaNG that his efforts are pointless. @MustaphaNG: please make sure the article you intend to re-create meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. You don't want to spend time re-creating something that can easily be deleted again. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 04:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. @Versace1608: MustaphaNG (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if a song is quite notable, but the author isn't, then it can be created. This scenerio may arise in rare cases, but it could happen. I was speaking in context. The songs and album of this artiste aren't considerable more or less notable than the artiste so it makes more sense to create the artiste page first, btw have you read A9? For A9 to speak about not having an artiste page making a page qualify for speedy delete says alot. Darreg (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Darreg: Thanks, I'll take it to DRV this week as the admin who closed the discussion last year seems to be really busy now and can't see my messages regards recreation of the article. MustaphaNG (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you submit a draft article for review through AFC? There isn't much the closing admin did than to guage consensus. Reviewers at AFC will actually assess the references and the POV of the article. Darreg (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Vanguard review previously cited as an offline source is now available online. Look [here] @Versace1608: @Darreg: @Stanleytux: MustaphaNG (talk) 11:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete non notable song from a non notable Nigerian artist. + Everything Versace1608 & Oluwa2Chainz have said during the course of this discussion. Celestina007 (talk) 02:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A non-notable song that has been reviewed by Vanguard, Nigeria Entertainment Today, RAPstation, HipHopDX, The Nation etc. Did you even bother to check the sources cited in the article? MustaphaNG (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: For reasons given here, and in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diary of a Supernatural. My discretion (which are strongly influenced by my perception of WP policies) in this entire situation wants me to !vote delete, but my interpretation of WP guidelines on references and proven facts on ground wants me to !vote Weak keep. My conscience wouldn't allow me go for either, so I better stay in-between. Darreg (talk) 16:45, 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. as a basically super-expired WP:PROD ansh 666 09:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Music Awards[edit]

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

Insufficient coverage to pass WP:EVENT; some coverage in Music Week, a trade publication, but nothing found in mainstream WP:RS. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 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 01:51, 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) 03:04, 14 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) 09:02, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bang Shang a Lang[edit]

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

Stated plainly, this is an article about a band that was not notable when the page was created nor has anything demonstrated their significance years later. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Figureskatingfan has a record of excellent content including FAs. This is one of her first creations and I'm sure she's forgotten all about it. Anyway, I really can't see how it could possibly meet WP:BAND. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-committed. Kudpung is correct above; I created this article as a stub when I was working on The Wiggles, my very first FA, in the interest of thoroughness. I did forget about it, mostly because they don't even perform anymore; plus, Murray Cook has retired from The Wiggles, anyway. The band's mentioned enough in other articles, so I'm fine with its deletion. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:BAND#6. The ensemble has two notable members: Murray Cook (who does have a WP article) of the Wiggles and Clyde Bramley - although he doesn't have his own article he is a former member of four (or more) notable bands, which do have WP articles.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)04:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like they were members of notable bands but they themselves were not notable. Remember WP:NOTINHERITED. Why would we want to keep an article that absolutely fails WP:GNG? Here is an interesting quote from WP:NBAND: "Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution, as there have been instances where this criterion was cited in a WP:CIRCULAR manner to create a self-fulfilling notability loop".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Since you claim that Cook is not notable, does this mean you are saying that Cook's article should be deleted?
"self-fulfilling notability loop": that would apply if I argued that Cook's notability can be used to establish the Wiggles' notability, which in turn means that Cook is notable. Cook is independently notable. I argue that both Cook and Bramley are notable, both are members of notable bands. Criterion #6 is applicable in this situation and my case does not form such a loop.
WP:GNG applies to "general" situations. WP:BAND applies "specifically" to musicians or ensembles that's why they have different criteria. You're trying to argue for some sort of hierarchy of notability in that all bands must pass GNG, even if they pass BAND – I don't recognise any such hierarchy.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cook is borderline but Bramley is certainly not independently notable. A search for coverage about him, not the bands he was a part of, brought up nothing. Surely if he were a notable musician someone would have written something about him, wouldn't you agree?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- According to WP:BAND#6 Bramley is notable because he is a former member of four notable bands. You're using some other standard.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also applying the "may be notable if they meet at least one" part -- not will be. The fact that the only claim made for notability is two borderline noteworthy members, one of whom who is not the subject of an article, is a good indicator that this band is not notable. A little common sense needs to be applied to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Excluding the first and final sentence, the article discusses other bands or endeavors the members were included in. You'll have to do a lot of original research to extract any significant content about this group.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation. YKMV (metric for YMMV): I don't believe this article's inclusion is indiscriminate.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:20, 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) 03:03, 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) 09:01, 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) 19:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2001 Santa Fe[edit]

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

An unremarkable live album which never charted. In a WP:BEFORE search I could only gather sources from the band's own website and wiki-generated pages -- both of which obviously do not meet WP:GNG standards. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As with this batch of live albums by the same act, I can't find coverage to suggest that this release meets WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. gongshow talk 18:04, 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) 03:03, 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) 09:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as 'bandcruft'; no indications of notability or significance, and no sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:25, 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. ansh 666 19:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher W. Kersey[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:10, 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) 03:00, 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) 09:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Quintus[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A film director and presenter supported by a tranche of blog type references but nothing of any weight or independence. I posted an earlier version to AfD where it was deleted with no other participants. I was concerned then that the lack of Cameroonian sources was a disadvantage for the the article but it is now clear that the individual is based in the US and good sources should be available. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Velella,thank you. The producer is based in the USA but not a Hollywood actor. He done movie in Cinema of Cameroon. The reference used to cite the actor notability is not a blog but independent news source for example line 2 and 9 cited from all Africa news website. And Ghana news site before minor website. Abanda bride (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More on references, line one of the subject reference is cited from Cameroon national news paper Cameroon tribune Abanda bride (talk) 05:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 14 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) 08:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I am not impressed by the sources - he exists, but the coverage is minimal, and the 'news sites' read like marketing press releaeses. I am not seeing significant international awards. But then there is the WP:SYSTEMICBIAS to consider, maybe for that part of the world his achievements are sufficient? Would be nice to hear from Cameroonian Wikipedians, but, sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:17, 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 delete. Euryalus (talk) 07:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rafeef Al Yasiri[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as no discussion has taken place.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment i provided new references for this article but I about notability i cant say my finally idea i should think Leodikap (talk) 15:27, 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 02:29, 14 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) 08:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable "beauty expert".John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a WP:Promo page on an non notable individual; no indications of notability or significance. Likely a COI-based profile which does not add value to the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not free means of promotion. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:26, 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) f e minist 10:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conlanging - The Art of Crafting Tongues[edit]

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

This article is about a film that does not meet notability. The references in the article do little to establish notability. Most are not independent (film web site, facebook page). The UBC link is just to news postings for the university as one of the people involved is a UBC professor. There is a 660 news item but that is a local Calgary radio station. I searched for coverage and found this news item from a local community news source for the Okanagan. In total, the available resourcing does not establish notability with significant coverage from multiple indpendent reliable sources. Whpq (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 14 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) 08:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as there are the local news sources that seem to be reliable, local news is allowed for WP:GNG but national would be more convincing so putting in a weak keep Atlantic306 (talk) 14:05, 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 keep and rename to List of dust storms Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of dust storms with visibility of 1/4 mile or less, or meters or less[edit]

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

This is the only article of its kind, listing dust storms of a certain visibility. (How many meters? 400m = 1/4 mile, but that's not in the title.) There's no way it can be anywhere near comprehensive enough, unless somebody goes through every source about every dust storm since records began and pulls out information about the visibility, but yet only three of the twelve storms currently listed on the page are notable enough for an article of their own - one of which is the Dust Bowl which is not so much a storm as a decade of storms, including the second item on the list - and this indicates that it is hard to find enough notable storms to populate the list. Additionally, the list is heavily weighted post-2006, which must surely be inaccurate as dust storms happen every year around the world and so missing out nearly all of the 20th century is ill-advised.

There must be hundreds of dust storms which had visibility low enough to be included in this arbitrarily-defined list, yet almost none of them are notable, nor have many reliable sources, and so this list is of pretty much no use. I can't believe it has lasted since 2013. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (inform) 22:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename List of dust storms and delete the arbitrary criterion and unnotable entries. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And add Great Bakersfield Dust Storm of 1977, 1983 Melbourne dust storm, 2014 Tehran dust storm, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename to either List of dust storms or more likely List of significant dust storms or List of notable dust storms, establish more rigorous criteria (Wikipedia notable, significance supported by RS, and/or deaths, injuries, or significant damage, perhaps) in the lead section of the revamped article, then trim the fat and regularly remove the non-criteria-meeting entries that will surely be added over time. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 16:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's assumed that list entries are notable/significant, so that's not specified in list titles. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Dust storm. Guy1890 (talk) 04:12, 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) 08:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename List of dust storms. Even if the existing inclusion criteria are retained or altered, those criteria should be stated in the intro, not the title. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and establish criteria as Ks0stm suggests. As nomination states, no reason have an arbitrarily-limited list. The visibility criterion appears to be an attempt at defining significance whereas such lists should be instead defined by noteworthiness. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:52, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Presstitute[edit]

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

Possibly speedy. Not a notable neologism/portmanteau. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These days, the term is creating buzz and controversy and is in news. Please check Google News and Google Books for initial research. I think, It fair to keep this article. Other editors please do formal research and give your opinion on it. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's cited in various Indian publications (e.g. Hindustan Times[34], The Indian Express[35]) and has made it into The Manila Times.[36] Clarityfiend (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:49, 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) 08:35, 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) 09:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Simmons[edit]

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

doesn't meet WP:NPOLITICIAN as has never been elected, came in third in a single election. CelenaSkaggs (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would argue Geoff Simmons has received significant coverage, [37] [38] and after the election, he is about to become leader of The Opportunities Party, a highly controversial minor NZ party. Nexus000 (talk) 3:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Keep Was going to go neutral seeing as it is an election year and gng gets a bit skewed with all the media coverage of minor politicians, who then fade into obscurity after the election. However, I did a google news search from 2016 and earlier and was somewhat surprised to see a number of hits.[39] I think he is notable enough for an article here no matter what happens to TOP. AIRcorn (talk) 09:57, 15 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)}}} 06:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has gained a bit of media attention recently due to candidacy, needs to be over more of a sustained period. A lot of citations are not secondary sources either just party press statements and a LinkedIn profile. If the person is notable the article doesn't seem to prove it. Kiwichris (talk) 08:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kiwichris says he has gained media attention recently because of candidacy, but as AIRcorn pointed out above, he has received a surprising amount of articles about him dating back to 2016. Without TOP, he has still received notable attention. Kiwichris also says the articles are not secondary sources, but 7/9 of the articles are not secondary sources - such as from Electoral Commission, to Newshub, to the World Obesity Federation. Nexus00
Comment If this is deleted, it should become a redirect to Jeff Simmons. Boleyn (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two cited articles in independent sources that are specifically about him – the articles in Salient and The Big Idea – plus sundry non-independent and minor independent sources. Not merely a losing Parliamentary candidate, but deputy leader (with the real prospect of the leader stepping down and making him leader) of what is currently the fifth highest polling political party in the country. Nurg (talk) 09:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article photo should definitely be deleted as it has been taken from this website and uploaded by Nexus000 as "own work". Kiwichris (talk) 10:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Geoff Simmons.jpg. +mt 21:13, 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. ansh 666 19:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Masahiro Kono[edit]

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

Non-notable Japanese voice actor. ANN only shows guest roles and little bits. [40] WP:TOOSOON. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eyeshield 21 per WP:CHEAP. It looks like she has appeared mostly in this series anyways. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledgekid87 that could work except his character isn't listed anywhere in List of Eyeshield 21 characters, which means minor or guest character to me. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True I saw that after the fact, oh well deletion it is then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:37, 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) 04:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Japanese wikipedia seems to list him for quite a large number of roles, including live-action drama. He seems to list all his past roles on his official website (spanning multiple pages too). However I do not know whether any of them are indeed notable. Perhaps someone who is more comfortable in researching in Japanese follow up? tonyxc600 comms logs 15:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He might be in a few live-action dramas but the Japanese wikipedia doesn't go into any detail on that and doesn't have any references to back that up outside of his own website, so notability is still unestablished. It's definitely not based on being a guest "student" in an anime show or minor role in a video game. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:52, 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) 12:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arm Slave[edit]

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

Pretty much entirely WP:NOTPLOT information that slipped under the radar, seems to have been the product of several merges that should have rather been deleted for non-notability. Its "reception" section cites dubious sources and fails to indicate any societal impact. Information is already in Wikia, for those who may cite WP:VALUABLE/WP:INTERESTING as a counterargument._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, information is already covered in Full Metal Panic!, and the article in question suffers from either a severe lack of sourcing or contains extensive WP:OR.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:13, 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) 04:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was going to vote keep until I saw the same information already included in Full Metal Panic!. This is one of those cases where we have to let the reader enjoy the series for themselves rather than narrate it for them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I would also support a redirect to Full Metal Panic!. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:07, 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. ansh 666 19:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cyndago[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NWEB. Although the story is a tragic one, I do not see significant coverage of the subject in reliable secondary sources. Comatmebro (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As writer of this article, I am willing to hear out any suggestions as to what needs to be sourced. And possibly a list of reliable sources where I can find stuff on Cyndago.-K-popguardian (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what is needed to keep cyndago alive?-76.174.35.70 (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: K-popguardian, 76.174.35.70 – what you would need is reliable sources not from YouTube or other social media, or the group's own website/social media platforms, but coverage in independent sources, such as newspapers and music magazines (either in print or online)... not blogs. Richard3120 (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, I can assure you I will be looking for Cyndago sources-K-popguardian (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are there like, any youtube news websites?-76.174.35.70 (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:38, 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) 04:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources such as this mention the group in the context of the death of one of its members, but I didn't find significant coverage about the group. Delete per WP:INHERITWEB which states "Web content is not notable merely because a notable person, business, or event was associated with it." --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sadly it seems that once you strip out the social media and YouTube sources, the only reliable sources available are those regarding Daniel Kyre's death, rather than anything to do with Cyndago's output before that, which makes them a bit WP:ONEEVENT. The fact that the article's two most enthusiastic "keep" voters seem to have been unable to come up with anything better either in the last two weeks doesn't bode well. Richard3120 (talk) 18:13, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies due to low participation. Mz7 (talk) 09:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Cox Companies[edit]

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

Company fails WP:GNG. There are some references but all local press and nothing that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. Page is also tied to Rosa's Cafe and Taco Villa as it is the parent company for both. CNMall41 (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability even though it has 2,200 employees. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:31, 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) 04:19, 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. postdlf (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Articles Relating to Terms of Service and Privacy Policies[edit]

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

The lead indicates this will be bad: "Some Wikipedia articles compare terms of service, privacy and data policies....". This article is indeed problematic on many levels. No indication of notability and WP:OR issues. It is a non-list list (a list article without a 'list of' in the title), but really more like a non-outline WP:OUTLINE, or... well, it's a mess. There is already a Category:Terms of service. I don't see what this article, which is essentially a 'see also' section of it, adds to this project. If seen as a list, it is too indiscriminate (fails WP:LISTCRITERIA - it's not unambiguous, objective, nor supported by reliable sources - it's a list invented by the author, not replicated in any shape by any source, and consisting of articles related to ToS that they thought relevant based on personal criteria) - it's like saying we can have a 'list of articles related to any other article'. While the author should be commended for trying to improve an important topic, creating such a 'non-list lists' is not the right way of going about it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I prepared the article because the topic is notable, with citations to major newspapers worldwide. The nomination itself says this is "an important topic" and endorses Category:Terms of service. The list and category standard says lists and categories "are synergistic, each one complementing the others... the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other." The title shows the topic. The lead divides this into three sections: comparisons, companies, and general. All are closely and clearly related to terms of service and privacy policies. And improvements in this lead are certainly welcome. The Lists~Development standard encourages lists like this which show what Wikipedia covers, and which show gaps where more is needed. Lists serve "as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia" (Lists~Navigation). Piotrus repeats here his concern about OR without citing any. It's worth remembering that WP:OR means "facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist", and if someone identifies any, that should be omitted. The nomination twice calls the article a "non-list list." I don't know what that means; maybe someone else can clarify this concern. Numbersinstitute (talk) 05:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- OR in this context refers to the 'kitchen sink' method of choosing articles to include in this list. You just included articles which you think are related to the topic. This does not make for a valid list. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep arguments that say the list is non complete are invalid when it comes to deleting the whole article. As this is wikipedia, pages can be edited by numerous editors. All pages have to start somewhere and it is up to the community to improve them. The "nonlist list" argument also isn't convincing and isn't explained.Egaoblai (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While terms of service may be an important topic, Wikipedia's own coverage of terms of service has not been established as a notable topic. However, if this list of articles which refer to or discuss terms of service is useful to some editors, I would accept moving it to somewhere outside the mainspace. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia's own coverage" is almost never "established as a notable topic", but lists and categories are encouraged anyway (CLN). All lists include non-notable articles, on notable subjects, which editors think are related to the list (e.g. electronics, pseudoscience, psychology, soil, Yellowstone). Numbersinstitute (talk). I've clarified the lead, if that helps. 18:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an index page, not an article. The notability standard is irrelevant here (it would be for the individual pages listed). DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @DGG: What does keeping this as an index page entitles? Just keeping it? Or changing namespaces? Structure? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said, a page serving as an index, like WP:Set index articles. DGG ( talk ) 15:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article is poorly titled, and the three sections are very different both stylistically and in terms of content. I'm not sure it's so bad as to qualify for TNT deletion, but it needs significant work. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:19, 21 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)}}} 04:03, 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) 19:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Komprise[edit]

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

non notable firm. The references may seem impressive at first glance, but they are all press releases--even #14, from the NYTimes, as the actual link makes clear DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fairly high chance of this being a commissioned work given the editor's knowledge of lingo such as 'deorphan', categories, infoboxes etc. In addition the sources are simply insufficient to meet our bar for inclusion. jcc (tea and biscuits) 12:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a start-up and its product (and for which I have reminded the contributor of WP:COI and the WP:DISCLOSE obligations). A large proportion of the text and references are about company funding, which is routine for start-ups, and the remaining Features section is largely promotional in tone. The Gartner analysis reproduced in "Storage Newsletter" is the best of the references, providing a c600 word appraisal of the product proposition relative to others in the market. I don't think that new product review is sufficient to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability at this point though. AllyD (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not show sufficient notability at this time. Editor also created an article about the (probably non-notable) COO of this company as their only other significant contribution, which definitely raises another red flag on the COI/PAID issue. PGWG (talk) 21:56, 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) 19:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gillian Smith (business executive)[edit]

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

non notable executive, trying to be a politician but not yet even nominated by his party DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete fails WP:BIO and written as WP:PROMO lacks reliable WP:CS --EC Racing (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CMOs are almost never notable. What is with the proliferation of titles in the CxO format anyway, CEO was one thing, and I guess COO and CFO, but now I see CIO, CMO, CGO and I have probably not even began to go through the list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. C Vfor would-be politician. DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. I would love to know what a non-profit executive is supposed to mean...does she give away all the money that she has left in her bank account at the end of each month? Domdeparis (talk) 17:18, 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 12:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ney v. Landmark Education Corp.[edit]

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

Notability / BLP Issues Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this article first and foremost fails Notability, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability however there are issues with a number of other Wikipedia policies. It also violates WP: BLP.

WP: Notability -–See below regarding the minimal sourcing. This article is about a small civil case that came to nothing. The defendant named in the article was dismissed from the case before it went to trial and the plaintiff lost both the case and a subsequent appeal. Why does it warrant an article?

Poor Sourcing- The article relies on several unreliable and primary sources 1) The book Outrageous Betrayal by Steven Pressman is effectively hearsay and contains almost no citations or footnotes. 2)The Cult Observer website/newsletter does not qualify as a reliable source. 3) In total there are only two reliable secondary sources here, not enough to consider this noteworthy.

WP-BLP - This is one of many articles created by a desysopped admin: Cirt. Prior to being removed from adminship and blocked from editing on BLPs, Cirt created numerous articles about people within the anti-cult movement as well as well as people criticized by the anti-cult movement. Werner Erhard, who is mentioned in this article, was a particular target of Cirt’s campainging. Cirt used his adminship to control articles and bully other editors. This abuse of Wikipedia came to end when Cirt lost his adminship and was banned from BLPs and these topics. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall the details about Cirt. Is there really no way he can even take part in this Afd? He wasn't notified. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've found the ruling at WP:RFAR: yes, Cirt is indeed banned from "new religious movement" topics. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Run-of-the-mill district court case, setting no precedent. Yes, it was appealed, but the district court's judgment was affirmed in an unpublished opinion that cannot be cited as precedent. The fact that the Fourth Circuit designated the opinion as "unpublished" (i.e. "the court deems the case to have insufficient precedential value") is evidence of its unimportance. The sources indicate it got some news coverage, but WP:NOTNEWS); the other sources appear to have axes to grind. Nothing to see here.

As an aside, the editors have been pretty imprecise in the content of the article. The Infobox calls the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals unpublished opinion a "transcript" of the district court case, which it certainly is not; and the Court of Appeals opinion itself on Commons is misrepresented there as as coming from "United States District Court of New Jersey". This level of disregard for accuracy in what qualifies as a WP:BLP article (Erhard was a party to the case) concerns me and makes me wonder how accurately the cited sources are represented. TJRC (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree that notability is borderline, but notable enough to merit a Washington Post article at the time. I don't agree that sourcing is weak. Everything significant in article can be found in the cited washington post or the Fourth Circuit opinions. I don't understand how this article purportedly runs afoul of WP:BLP The misbehaviour of one of the editors who created strikes me as irrelevant to this discussion. Maybe the proposer will explain. The inaccuracies referenced above should be corrected, but don't relate to the living person. If an editor is concerned that a source is being misrepresented, he should look at the source, not have the article deleted. (Not hard to do, it's in wikisources. I do agree that the case did not establish any significant legal precedent, and certainly doesn't meet the criteria in the WP:CASES guideline, but many cases that don't fall within that guideline are notable for other reasons, as this one seems to be, and have articles here. Guideline should probably be amended. Federalist51 (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My look at the article is on two bases: that facts of the case, which are interesting and perhaps prurient. The article discusses these in depth and is sufficiently supported by references. The matter of law in the case is unremarkable, but not discussed in the article. Why did the case make it to the appeals stage? It really has nothing to do with the facts. At issue was successor liability and personal injury. The PI claim was spurious at best. The matter of successor liability was dealt with in accord with existing law and precedent. Those two elements make the case not notable. So we return to the facts: It is a soap opera story of a woman who went to an est seminar, confessed infidelities, had infidelities confessed to her, and went nuts. It's essentially an Enquirer story, and one damaging to a living person. Keep it if you wish, but I would have hoped we didn't use an appeals case template to wrap it for WP readers. I rather doubt the article would have made it this far without the official looking packaging. Rhadow (talk) 12:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Why did the case make it to the appeals stage?". Basically, because the losing party chose to appeal. A losing party can appeal as of right; it doesn't mean the appeal has merit.

It's different at the Supreme Court stage, where, with some rare exceptions, a party must petition the court to hear the case; and the court says "nope, not interested," in something like 99% of the cases it's asked to hear. TJRC (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. One newspaper mention and one other reliable source aren't enough. Even if they were accurately represented here, court papers are primary sources and don't establish notability. Also clearly doesn't meet WP:CASES. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nwlaw63 -- WP:CASES failed to achieve consensus, so I'm not sure it's an effective argument. Rhadow (talk) 03:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm simply pointing out that if one used that protocol, this still wouldn't be worthy of an article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Landmark Worldwide. Noteworthy in context of company history only. Neutrality^talk 16:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the value in a redirect in this case. The case is so minor it's not worth mentioning in the article on the company. It would probably get deleted from that article sooner or later, in which case we'd be left with a redirect that doesn't help anyone: if someone ever did search on the case, or find it in a google search, they'd be sent to an article that didn't even discuss it. TJRC (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails on WP:Notability, and is also a coatrack with an agenda other than the ostensible topic of the article. DaveApter (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge entire lede to Landmark Worldwide#Public reception and criticism - this is a classic example of what that type of section is for. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TimTempleton If you would be willing, I invite you to consider the deletion proposal from this perspective: The case in and of itself, as multiple people have said, is not noteworthy, (the basis of my nomination). As to your proposal to merge; the events of the case took place before Landmark even existed, and the company was quickly removed from the case when it was found not to have successor liability. Landmark is almost a footnote to a case that while being salacious, had little legal significance.Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Elmmapleoakpine Landmark was sued and then removed from the case when the Virginia court ruled that liability didn't carry from Erhard to Landmark, but that doesn't change the fact that it was sued, however unwelcome the suit was. The suit got media coverage - I just added the URL for the Washington Post coverage. That's why I say take the lede in its entirety and merge. It contains the qualifying details that a discerning reader can use to come to the same factual understanding. BTW - I made a minor modification to the lede after reading the appeal. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Borderline notability but never the less meets the notability in most respects.--INDIAN REVERTER (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Above editor was blocked yesterday as a new account that immediately rapidly voted keep on numerous articles. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is so not notable, is terribly sourced, and seems a clear candidate as a coatrack. On top of that the events in the case happened before the company's existence!! Alex Jackl (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When I edited this in the past I thought it was a weak article to begin with. This case is not notable enough and was inconsequential. It therefore does not warrant a Wikipedia article.RecoveringAddict (talk) 17:40, 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 speedy close as out-of-process. Page moved, as it seems uncontroversial. For future reference the correct forum for this kind of request is WP:RM, not AfD. – filelakeshoe )³  14:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shade 45 (Eminem)[edit]

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

Delete per G6, as the proper topic title is Shade 45, without the parenthetical reference to Eminem. Binksternet (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Shade 45 over redirect. Subject is clearly notable, with quite a few RS available (only a few actually in the article but even that is enough). WP:G6 should be applied to the redirect so this article can be properly moved; it definitely does not apply to this article. CThomas³ (talk) 04:01, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies due to low participation. Mz7 (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Praveen Jain[edit]

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

Non notable actor. There exists a Praveen Jain who is Amitabh Bachchan's manager, but they are not the same person. Has probably acted in blink and you miss roles. All the references provided are dead and searching does not provide any better references. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR Jupitus Smart 12:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:34, 14 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) 00:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability requirements for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 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) 19:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JerryCo[edit]

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

There's no real evidence of notability. Most of the links are dead, but as far as I can tell, they include the subject's official site (not an independent source); a couple of blogs (also disqualified, per WP:SPS); and a smattering of other more-or-less shady sites, apparently promoting some video clip. The subject seems to have been associated with a couple of better-known figures in 2004/05, but that really is not enough to demonstrate any sort of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:34, 14 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) 00:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to indicate that this rapper is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Barrios[edit]

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

Non-notable individual mentioned briefly in conjunction with Oscar Danilo Blandón in a few conspiracy sources that claim the CIA was involved in drug trafficking. Location (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. 00:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC) -Location (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mentioned in Dark Alliance as asking Oscar Danilo Blandón to speak to Norwin Meneses, and as owning a restaurant in Miami. Have found no other references or rhyme or reason for an article about him. Rgr09 (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:33, 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) 00:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Saw second hand accounts that claimed he was involved in the cocaine trade in Los Angeles, but nothing that met requirements for notability or notoriety. Rogermx (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article totally lacks sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 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.