Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 September	7 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 merge to Alfred Bester. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 00:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rolly Bester[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. IBDb has no record of her Broadway credits and her IMDb listing is very sparse. She can't inherit notability from her SF writer husband, Alfred Bester, but a merge and redirect there wouldn't be unreasonable. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alfred Bester and incorporate her info and maybe her picture there. I didn't find any info about her under any of her names in databases. Redirecting will discourage recreation and we can use the sourced material in Bester's article which needs some improvement in the Bio section. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. Best to keep the blue link. Montanabw^(talk) 18:57, 12 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. Mz7 (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Learning for Life UK[edit]

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

De-prodded by IP without rationale. Prod reason was "While their cause is valiant, this charity isn't notable." DrStrauss talk 12:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Power~enwiki (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found one mention of this charity co-organising a workshop in Bangladesh (New Nation, 2012 – via HighBeam (subscription required) ) but nothing providing the depth of coverage about the charity itself needed to meet WP:ORGDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. and I think it could have been deleted as A7 speedy. There's noclaim of significance. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 14 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, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Angelos Odyssey[edit]

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

Non-notable self-published book that fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). No professional reviews found in a good faith google search. Extremely limited content and sourcing. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I declined an A7 speedy, since A7 doesn't apply to books, but added a prod request for essentially the reasons given above. (Also note that the book isn't even listed at World Cat). Original author removed my prod tag with a comment claiming notability, but added no sources to back it up. Don't see a reason to change my opinion.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article on a book, presumably the book by J. B. M. Patrick recently self-published via Shingen Blue Publishing, but even that is not clear from the article text. The text contains no claim to notability, nor am I finding any such evidence. Fails WP:NBOOK. AllyD (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly speedy. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:51, 13 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, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Gharibian[edit]

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

Article about semi-pro footballer which contains an unverified claim of 1 full international appearance. The only match report I was able to find for that international match indicates Gharibian didn't participate. Even if he did participate, it is hardly a sufficient achievement to confer notability (one very low-profile friendly) especially when I cannot locate any online sources that indicate he is the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources (instead, a handful of match reports and a single interview published by his former club). Jogurney (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jogurney (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was a match played between Armenia and Andorra on 7th Feb ~~2010~~ 2007 as claimed in the article but this match report does not show him to be in the team.Neither does Soccerway.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The claim, if true, would satisfy WP:NFOOTY, in which case it should be kept. But until I see evidence that the claim is actually true, I'm not !voting keep. Also, I assume Pharaoh of the Wizards means 2007, not 2010, as that is supported by both the article and what he cited. Smartyllama (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While an appearance for the Armenian national team would of course satisfy WP:NSPORT, this claim appears to be inaccurate. The article also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he did not play in Armenia v Andorra in 2007, see this as well. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL - also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 10:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSOCCER subce they have not recieved the required significant coverage. or played for a professional team. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:47, 8 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) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American Cricketer[edit]

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

Contested PROD (a reference was added when the tag was removed). While the history of cricket in the US is notable, I don't see any specific notability about this particular publication about that topic, unless its 52-year lifespan equates to notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Reference provided proves that the periodical exists, but no evidence that it is notable. From the ref provided you can read some editions, which may be useful as refs on other articles. Spike 'em (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on comments below, I'm removing my vote Spike 'em (talk) 07:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was a magazine published between 1877 to 1929, so almost inevitably internet sources are rather thin, but Christie's recently described it as "historically important"[1], and it is mentioned in this book as "the devoted organ of the sport"[2] Other sources comment on its longevity and importance at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.171 (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see no reason why this should be deleted. The periodical certainly existed as referenced. arguments based on notability are entirely subjective. A periodical lasting that long is certainly worthy of inclusion into this encyclopedia.Egaoblai (talk) 10:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it existed for 50 years is not enough. No evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources as required by WP:GNG. And the above argument that "notability is entirely subjective" is wrong, we have clear objective guidelines for notability at WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a WP:CSB problem for pre-internet notability, in that the necessary sources to demonstrate notability are tucked away in archives of dead trees, so I cut them a bit more slack than some detail of David Beckham's life that is recorded to the nth degree. But I'd suggest that the fact that an Australian newspaper reported the death of someone whose only notability was editing this publication suggests that the publication itself had an international reputation at the time. I know that snippet doesn't prove notability in itself, but it gives me confidence that you would find evidence of notability if you delved into the archives. So I'd give it the benefit of the doubt.Le Deluge (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Le Deluge. Greenbörg (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Half a century of publication is enough. WP:IAR and a GNG pass to boot. Carrite (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have a strange situation on Wikipedia that will take a lot of untangling to resolve, but the fact that a 50 year magazine can even be considered for deletion is utterly bizarre and reflects a ongoing situation that GNG is not fit for purpose anymore. What was once a guide to prevent spammy articles is now a blunt tool used to delete information about really existing thingsa that were notable to many people.Egaoblai (talk) 04:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also: mention in Frank L. Mott, A History of American Magazines, 1865-1885, pg. 220. Carrite (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe that, judging by the extensive use of the publication in the footnotes, that the publication also likely garners substantial coverage in Ryan Swanson and David K. Wiggins (eds.), Philly Sports: Teams, Games, and Athletes from Rocky's Town, although the relevant pages are not accessible on the interwebs. Carrite (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The publication also gains coverage on page 127 of The Tented Field: A History of Cricket in America,by Tom Melville, although this, once again, is not available to be viewed on the web. Carrite (talk) 15:56, 12 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. bd2412 T 03:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Tripp[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E. Her blog isn't notable apart from the viral controversy about her husband's Instagram post. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG. Article is well sourced and subject is indeed notable according to general notability guideline. In reply to Power~enwiki, a blog with a quarter of a million followers on Instagram and several mentions/links on major news sources is still notable, regardless of how it became notable. Deletion notice should be removed and article should remain. SantiagoPierre (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems the archetypical BLP1E. Article created by SPA acct that has another article on Tripp's husband waiting in the wings. Agricola44 (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Take a look at Tanesha Awasthi or Barbie Ferreira articles. By direct comparison of references, mentions, partnerships, size of following, etc. Tripp is inarguably no less notable than these other figures with undisputed articles. SantiagoPierre (talk) 05:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX is not a legitimate argument for notability. The subject must be notable of her own accord. While the web is certainly flooded with her pictures, with blogs, Twitter ephemera, etc., it is difficult to conclude that this person has been noted by independent, reliable sources. Agricola44 (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point on WP:WAX. However, doesn't change the fact that person is still of note in the blogger/body positive/fashion sphere, which is backed up by the 18 references cited in the article, including ABC News, TODAY Show, People Magazine, and E! News. How are these noted publications not strong enough as independent and reliable sources? The subject may not have Kardashian-level notability by any means, but to deny subject's visibility and notability for a Wiki article doesn't seem warranted. Tripp is clearly an established social media figure with enough note to warrant an article. SantiagoPierre (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.We are not talking about whether she ought to be notable, but whether she is suitable for coverage in a WP article by our guidelines. The references are insufficiently reliable to show that. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG, non notable fashion blogger. Might as well put this in writing: I denounce ATD L3X1 (distænt write) 02:51, 14 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. bd2412 T 03:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Arek Dreyer[edit]

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

Not a notable living person. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete No evidence of notability in any field and no independent sources.Sandals1 (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep Author of about 15 officially sanctioned books about Apple related technologies for more than a decade. Translated into Spanish. Frequent speaker in related conferences around the globe. -- Henriok (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- courseware developers are rarely notable and this misses the mark. The article lists no 3rd party sources, and I could not locate any. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GScholar brings up about 32 findings, which is pretty low. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:45, 14 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. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for Normal[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced article about a YA novel, consisting exclusively of a plot summary and making no actual claim of notability per WP:NBOOK. As always, every book is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- it needs to have an actual notability claim, and reliable source coverage about it. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The book has received a number of awards according to the Amazon page: "School Library Journal Best Book * ALA Notable Children’s Book * New York Public Library’s “One Hundred Titles for Reading and Sharing” * Chicago Public Library Best of the Best * Cooperative Children’s Book Center Choice * Connecticut Book Award Winner * American Library Association Schneider Family Book Award Winner". I think the ALA awards ensure that this meets our notability guidelines for books. Malinaccier (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Verifiable evidence that has received "major literary awards" and therefore passes WP:NBOOK. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article could use improved referencing not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 04:46, 9 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) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Church[edit]

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

Can't find any non-local coverage to indicate they pass WP:GNG. Local politician who does not pass WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article moved from Warren Church to Warren Church (politician) by me, during AFD. I believe/hope this should cause no confusion. --do ncr am 23:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Both Warren Church (politician) and the dab page Warren Church now have AfD tags, but this AfD entry is clearly about the politician so I removed the tag from the dab page (in the hope my action doesn't screw up this AfD!). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I don't think that will cause any problem, but a bot had added the AFD tag there and may do so again. If so the AFD tag there needs to be removed after this AFD about the politician is completed. --do ncr am 14:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline case. The 5, regionally-elected county supervisors are the executive authority for Monterey County, which with a pop. ~ 450,000 is sort of like a city council in a mid-size city without a Mayor. Most Monterey country supervisors are not bluelinked. One area where he may be notable is in his land use regulation and park-creating efforts in Monterey County - one of the most treasured scenic regions in the U.S. (Big Sur). Claims that he took a leading role in creating parks for local use, County's first park, and the county Parks Department appear to be valid.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The operative issue is the 250,000 population of Monterey County at the time, not its present population.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Population understates the importance of Monterey County; it is important for its rugged coastline and campgrounds/beaches/parks and more, is known by many millions who have driven California Route 1(?) in order to see the scenery. Carmel is a rich, expensive place which must spill out; the development pressures must be huge. What goes on in Monterey is more newsworthy than elsewhere. A pioneering preservationist and county supervisor there is simply a lot more important than they would be somewhere else. --do ncr am 21:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County supervisor is not a level of office that constitutes an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself — it's a level of office where an article might be acceptable if it could be sourced well enough to get him past WP:GNG, but it's not a role that entitles him to an article just because he existed. Of the 39 sources cited here, however, close to half are primary sources (reports and meeting minutes from the county's own internal records, raw tables of election results, etc.) that cannot assist notability — and of the ones that represent reliable source coverage in media, even a large proportion of those are glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage that isn't about him, or even entirely tangential to him (frex, reference #30 links to an article which verifies stuff about the Humble Oil refinery fight but completely fails to even mention Warren Church's name in conjunction with it.) All of which leaves us with very few sources that are both reliable and substantively about Warren Church — and every last one of those few sources represents the purely routine level of purely local coverage that would simply be expected to exist for any county councillor. So the sourcing shown here does not constitute evidence that he belongs in an international encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable county level politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Warren Church received significant independent coverage in multiple, reliable secondary sources. I have reviewed the notability guide and can find no mention that he needs “non-local coverage” I could not find any mention of a requirement that the sources be geographically distant from one another. I have been asking around to other editors, and no one has heard of that requirement. Only the guidelines on WP:GNG.

Articles do not need to be about the subject, “Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.” WP:SIGCOV. As Warren Church received his notability pre-Internet, all the sources are newspaper articles. I have reviewed many and they pass the “more than a trivial mention” requirement. Bearcat, you say that half of the 39 sources are to reports and meeting minutes, which is what I had to use to prove elements of the article, mainly the Committees area. They were not used to prove notability which is what is being challenged in this AfD. Citation #30 is the only online article that exists on Humble Oil. I used it as an element of the Humble Oil section, it was not used to prove notability.

Notability is not temporary WP: NTEMP. His contributions were decades ago, prior to the Internet’s existence. The sources I have used prove that during the years he was active he was notable.

Warren Church is an important part of local land use history in Monterey County. Multiple notable sources have acknowledged him as the father of the Monterey County parks system. These sources state this in different publications, and over many years. Warren Church has coverage for a significant period of time, starting at the beginning of his political career, through his 12 years as a supervisor; “sustained coverage is an indicator of notability.” WP:SUSTAINED.1stCoastal (talk) 06:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, you say that you had to use reports and meeting minutes to prove elements of the article — but if you had to source things that way because there was no media coverage for them, then by definition those things aren't notable enough to be addressed in the article at all. If the media didn't care enough to report those things, then neither do we.

Secondly, "an important part of local land use history in Monterey County" is not a notability criterion. To get a person into Wikipedia on a claim like that, the coverage of the claim would have to nationalize into sources on the order of The New York Times or The Washington Post, and purely local coverage in Monterey County's own local media wouldn't cut it. Yes, we most certainly do require the coverage to go beyond the purely local in many cases — for instance, we don't keep smalltown municipal councillors just because local sourcing exists; we don't keep county supervisors just because local sourcing exists; we don't keep standalone non-chain restaurants or retail stores or other small businesses just because local sourcing exists; and on and so forth.

The simple reality is that every town or city or county that has a public parks system will always have its own local person who can be described and locally sourced as the "father" or "mother" of the system (as well as its own "father" or "mother" of the library system, and on and so forth) — so what's needed is not just local verification that he did the same things as every other "parent" of a local parks system, but evidence that he's somehow a special case over and above most of the others. What's needed isn't a reason why readers in Monterey County might be interested, but evidence that readers on the other side of the world need to care more about the father of Monterey County's park system than they do about the founder of their own local park system who doesn't have an article. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Warren Church is not notable for being the occupant of an office that "came with a typewriter and $300 a month for incidentals" but rather for someone who, if chosen as the topic for a mid-semester "someone who could serve as a role model for public service" report by a 7th grader, Wikipedia could be a proper and valuable source. Also, Warren Church's "'12 years is as long as anyone should consecutively hold any one elective or appointive position... New ideas are necessary..." is quoteworthy, especially because "he did not miss a single board meeting... 558 consecutive regular board meetings and 100 or more special meetings." Trink24 (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my "keep." From his Obituary, he's not such a role model for a 7th grader:

"Mr. Church ended his own life on Saturday at the age of 87 under the state’s relatively new End of Life Option Act after years of failing health and no hope of recovery"
China did population control; his "The Overburdened Ark" on population control - too many foreigners? Trink24 (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our notability standards are based on sourceability, not whether 12 year olds might pick him as an essay topic. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - note to closer - neither of the above "keep" !votes are based on policy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This person died on Saturday (after the initial listing) [3]; re-listing in case any of the obituary coverage shows new notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Power~enwiki (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Monterey Herald obituary which someone added to the article is substantial. It is fairly natural and common that articles get created about notable persons when they are dying or have just died, when the absence of an article is pretty salient. Some editing down of the article to report on his life in a more summary fashion would be appropriate. --do ncr am 21:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An obituary in the local newspaper is routine, not notability-establishing, coverage, because it would simply be expected to exist. Get back to us when he's obituaried in The New York Times, not just the Monterey Herald. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, most deceased persons don't get any obituary written by a newspaper as a news obituary (as opposed to family-written paid obituaries, or no obituary at all), which this appears to be. I am not saying everyone getting such an obituary is Wikipedia-notable, but IMO this one's content is substantial. You have made it clear you think otherwise, we can just agree to disagree. --do ncr am 23:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, not every deceased person has their death automatically treated as news. But every deceased person who held a role that made them locally prominent — every mayor, every city councillor, every county councillor, every school board trustee, etc. — most certainly does get obituaried in the local newspaper. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This source "25 who got us here" of 2013 in "Monterey County Now" provides profiles for 3 then-current Monterey County Supervisors: Lou Calcagno, Jane Parker, and Simon Salinas who probably deserve articles. It doesn't speak to Warren Church's notability directly, but I think that more coverage of these supervisors is warranted. --do ncr am 23:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are good sources showing he served on several regional boards. Bearian (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Based on his notability being sufficiently established from local sources at a pre-internet time. WP:NTEMP Sequitur99 (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is more than well sourced and the arguments here is favour of keep are impassioned and logical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egaoblai (talk • contribs) 10:30, 12 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, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mosiur Rehman[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:AUTHOR Kleuske (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. pure promotionalism "That was the moment when his life changed and he became a full time writer. ". It wouldn't matter if there are sources to meet the GNG, because NOT ADVOCACY is basic policy. But there aren't. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG and is clearly promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:04, 12 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. I assume that the "agree" !vote in this case is a "delete" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maneendra shukla[edit]

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

Local politician, and the only cited source is about a local sanitation campaign. Couldn't find anything else (although I do not speak Hindi). Does not meet WP:NPOL. agtx 19:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree . Fully, completely

Agree ; I popped in here to make those exact points myself. ɯɐɔ 💬 19:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Politicians at the local level of office are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just for existing, the way state or federal legislators are, but nothing written or sourced here offers any indication that he would pass WP:NPOL #2 (which requires significant press coverage.) Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Fails WP:NPOL. FITINDIA 10:46, 7 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 under WP:G11. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 20:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frazer Consultants[edit]

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

Spam created by an account that appears to be the owner. Barely escapes the G11 threshold in my opinion, so I'm bringing it here for discussion. In short, this article is excluded from Wikipedia on two grounds: all the coverage is either not in-depth or is promotional, so it fails to establish notability per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SPIP. The other is that it is spam created with the sole intent of promoting the enterprise, making it excluded from Wikipedia by WP:NOTSPAM, and failing the second prong of WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. The content is 100% promotional and created by a SPA Special:Contributions/MattGFrazer. Sources are trivial mentions or self-promotion, as in "Frazer Consultants Funeral Personalization Software Webinar a Success"! (via a Newswire press release). I requested speedy deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:26, 11 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, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Shoemaker[edit]

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

No independent sources. Roxy the dog. bark 18:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All sources presented in the article are either self-published or are otherwise linked to the subject. No evidence turned up in searches that there are independent reliable sources about the subject available. Does not pass the general or any applicable specific notability guideline. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete G-search "David Shoemaker + "Thelema" + "Psychology"; a number of passing mentions, no in-depth coverage of his work or life in independent sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick search throws up nothing.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although this is the sort of article that should probably be archived somewhere as a perfect example of how not to write a BLP. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:28, 13 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, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dahlia Kurtz[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a single-market radio personality and newspaper columnist, not referenced to any reliable source coverage about her: four of the five references here are her primary source profiles on the websites of her own employers and GoodReads, and the fifth is a blog post which verifies the existence of an anthology that she contributed to but fails to even mention her name at all in conjunction with it. None of this represents reliable source coverage about her for the purposes of clearing a Wikipedia notability criterion, and the article claims nothing that would entitle her to a presumption of notability in the absence of reliable source coverage about her. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a case of TOOSOON. I'm finding mentions of her on HighBeam, but not any hits in other databases. Delete without prejudice for recreation when more notable sources are found. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously a declined PROD, cannot be closed using the WP:NOQUORUM rationale.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG upcoming not notable at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:38, 12 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. bd2412 T 03:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Tribal and Customary Law[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG and specifically no WP:ORGDEPTH, all sources routine anouncements of course introductions or the opening of the centre. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES does not apply since this is not an "independently accredited degree-awarding institution", it is a non independent constituent center of Central University of Jharkhand. As such, notability must be established like any other organization. Note that the center isn't even independent enough to have their own website, nor even a section on the parent institute website. I would have proposed a merge, but frankly there isn't anything worthwhile to merge, so at most a redirect (which I already boldly attempted but was reverted, hence AfD). Muhandes (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above and copyvio. Much is a direct copy of http://www.cuj.ac.in/downloads/Centre%20for%20Tribal-Info.pdf and although attempts a

to clean up the content were made the changes were reverted without comment.PRehse (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no evidence that either the body of law or the center are notable. Bearian (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The body of Customary Law is notable. so is Tribal Law. (there are of course numerous types of each, a specific variety may not be notable.) This article is not concerned with either. The nominator states this is a satellite campus of an accredited university. The relevant notability guideline is WP:GNG. Neither WP:NORG or WP:ORGDEPTH are relevant, nor as the nominator states, is WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 11:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. it's not a satellite campus, but a department within a university--located, a//c the article, on the main campus. We very rarely keep these without very strong references, which are not present here. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the GNG, i even tried alternative spellings. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:44, 14 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. bd2412 T 03:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Bashaw[edit]

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

Little indication of importance. The article uses peacock phrases and a search for sources suggests that the subject fails both notability for musicians standards and the general notability guideline. DrStrauss talk 18:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Fairly blatant vanity article. All four provided links are broken (and old). A google search provides the usual listings with promotional and trivial coverage. However, the subject has released on two major labels (Vanguard and Atlantic Records), which count for something. Problem is I haven’t found third party coverage to verify the significance of these—only her own promotional material. Her AllMusic entry is trivial. If someone can scare up some actual sources beyond fluffy hometown newspaper coverage, it may be worth saving with re-writing. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in the absence of sources showing she passes WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Ping me to reconsider if sources come up though. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, no indepth coverage. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:43, 14 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 deleted. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Berenice Mulubah[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Some mentions in sources, but are mostly tabloidy and not in-depth. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the first AfD. Also check for sockpuppetry per the first AfD.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realize that it was already deleted at AFD before. Since I declined a CSD for this article twice (before both AFDs), I'll let some other admin handle it. Thanks, ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 6 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. Mainly per the WP:BLP1E point; the validity of the WP:INDISCRIMINATE point is contested and all examples cited in that policy are about particular ways information is presented, not about topics. The BLP1E/WP:ONEEVENT points have a consensus behind, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Neher[edit]

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

Utterly un-notable individual, doing something utterly unremarkable about which the local sports body are not sure is even unique SchroCat (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As one editor thinks "utterly non-notable" is not a reason to delete (nonsense, of course it's a good reason to delete, and quoting an essay at me is not likely to engender much reasoned comment), we'll go for WP:DEL8 about a pointless waste of time and effort in trying to crowbar in unencyclopaedic crap into what is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. You could also go with WP is not a collection of random factoids, add that trivial rubbish shouldn't be our aim. As for the "local sports body", in case you didn't quite understand the reference, it concerns the Florida High School Athletic Association who are not sure that the single minor record this individual has broken, has in fact been broken, just that it "could be", which is soooo unencyclopaedic it makes by brain ache... - SchroCat (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "utterly non-notable" is not a reason to delete per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Subject passes WP:GNG through significant national coverage in ABC News, Miami Herald, New York Post... it's not in the article as a source, but even Business Insider picked up the story as well as the New England Sports Network. Clearly far beyond the reach of a "local sports body".--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Deletion 8 -- Deletion rule 8 in Deletion Policy states "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)." The subject in question clearly passes WP:GNG with the requirement "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and therefore passes the notability standards previously established.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The inability of journalists to check facts or check information one of the more depressing facts of modern society (and one reason we have WP:NOTNEWS). The local sports bodybhave said it cannot be verified and have onlynsaid this rather dubious factoid "could be" true, but cannot verify it. The lazy-arsed journos who have parsednthis as "she was the first" shouldn't be holding down a job, but that is no reason for what purports to be a proper encyclopaedia to repeat second-rate nonsense under the guise that it is "encyclopaedic": that is fluff and chaff for the second-rate only. - SchroCat (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true I suppose--and the article mentions that. Even if it is, the subject still has received significant coverage. That's the measure of WP:GNG. Even if the source articles are incorrect, the coverage is still there. That's significant.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on "random factoids" -- The link in the "Random Factoids" argument directs to Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This argument does not apply because 1: the article in question is not an indiscriminate list but is very WP:DISCRIMINATE in its content; and 2: the article is not summary-only descriptions of works, lyrics databases, excessive listings of unexplained statistics, nor exhaustive logs of software updates. Any data in the article is "put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources" as the policy calls for.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's an indiscriminate "fact" (of dubious veracity), which is used to act as a coathook a pointless article. - SchroCat (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how you believe it is "indiscriminate"--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on "trivial rubbish" -- The link for the "trivial rubbish" argument links to "Why we have these requirements" section in the Notability guideline, and every point in that section has been met or exceeded.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It's trivial bollocks that should be nowhere near the project. This is an encyclopaedia, not the "And finally" snippet of the sports pages. - SchroCat (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it's an "and finally" article simply because of the widespread coverage. "And finally" articles are typically one or two articles, not significant major stories covered by multiple writers and published in multiple national publications.--~~

Delete - a living, low profile, person notable for only one thing sourced to the same story repeated in 109 newspapers. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I thought about that, but one of the Miami Herald features and this USA Today article were both written before the game.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:NHSPHSATH should be considered as well because this article deals with a high school athlete. The "prolonged" coverage aspect of the guideline could be problematic. Cbl62 (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Articles published before the touchdown pass. [4][5][6][7][8] WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not close to the prolonged threshold. - SchroCat (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the subject has not met the "prolonged" threshold. The question is, which measure is best: WP:GNG or WP:NHSPHSATH? Both are worthy to be considered. The first question that comes to mind is this: is NHSPHSATH inclusive or exclusive for high school athletes? In other words, if the subject does meet GNG and not NHSPHSATH, is the article considered notable or not? That's a bit of philosophy...--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivial bollocks, one event, rest as per Shrocat and Ritchie333 103.30.143.157 (talk) 07:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:TRIVIAL is also an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. It's not really an argument but just a subjective opinion. "One event" does not apply because the significant coverage began before the noted game.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly meets WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 02:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment even this Wikipedia article is making news in Australia: The Daily Telegraph (Sydney, NSW) "Holly Neher won a place in history, and her own Wikipedia page, with just one throw"

Lazy journalism of mis-reporting circumastances and a self-fulfilling prophecy. I feel we are very much in barrel-scrapping mode when it comes to this article.

The only item that seems to be mis-reported is that the Florida high school association cannot confirm that she is the first female to throw a touchdown pass, but believes it is true. That is reflected in the article and in many of the online sources. The rest of the story--the success of the play, the drive to learn the position, the role in the team, the coaching, the game--all of that is confirmed and is covered extensively through reliable third party sources. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete an article. The statement "I feel we are very much in barrel-scrapping mode" is just a subjective opinion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not misrepresent my views by saying the basis of my delete argument is IDONTLIKEIT, it is completely untrue and extremely uncivil. To rectify other untruths: the people who should know the details (the Florida school board) cannot confirm she is definitely the first; and, no, the media sources do not reflect that, they are stating as fact that she is first (and lazy journalism is the very worst basis for lazy encyclopaedia writing). Yes, I agree that the rest of the game is covered in the press, but this article isn't about the game, it's about one person who many not be the first person to have done one thing. Such triviaial "notability", particularly from a school attendee is not encyclopaedic, it's barrel-scappingly awful. - SchroCat (talk) 06:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "I feel we are very much in barrel-scrapping mode when it comes to this article" is a clear indication of a personal point of view, and such personal points of view should be avoided. I do apologize for any lack of civility that you feel as it certainly is not intentional.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is a personal opinion, but that is entirely different for claiming my argument for deletion is based on IDONTLIKEIT. It's also not correct to say that opinions should be avoided; AfD is all about the opinion of where articles fail to meet the required standards for inclusion for an encyclopaedia, rather than a high school yearbook. - SchroCat (talk) 05:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the essay Wikipedia:Notability is not a matter of opinion. The point there is that notability arguments should be based on structured positions. Certainly people can have opposing views of interpretation, but there's no need for "bashing" the article content.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what I have written. Trying to match facts against policies will always be a matter of opinion in judging the weight of what is available against our policies. if it wasn't, then processes like AfD would be bot-driven. (And you're drifting further and further from the point of what this AfD is supposed to be about with this thread. - SchroCat (talk) 11:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please refrain from making AFD-type comments in the "comments" of the article, as you did here. Such comments belong in AFD, not embedded in the article itself.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this has sweet FA to do with the AfD, so it isn't the place to raise it, but as you have done so, I'll have to answer it here. The comment is not an "AFD-type comment": it highlights how poor the text is. That sentence text ("Several independent news sources state that indeed she was the first, including the Pensacola News Journal,[6] the Miami Herald,[4] Business Insider,[7] and USA Today.[8]") has obviously been written with AfD in mind, and it's very poorly done. There is no need to list the publications involved at all - that's why we have inline citations or footnotes

I'm unfamiliar with the phrase "sweet FA" -- if you believe the text in the article is poorly written (and I'm not saying it isn't), feel free to edit the content.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See Fanny Adams#Legacy. If I edit it, I'll take out the sentence. It has no place in there. As you seem to be unable to keep talk page subjects out of the AfD, feel free to answer there, or edit the article yourself. If not, I'll take out the line. Scratch that - given your offer, I've edited the line, but I'll put a fat wedge of cash on a pointless revert. - SchroCat (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As noted on the talk page, blanking the entire section and removing the sources cited wasn't exactly what I had in mind and seems to be an unproductive edit, possibly even interfering with the AFD process. Please make another attempt. See WP:PRESERVE for ideas.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another untruth? Provide a diff for where I have been "blanking the entire section" or strike yet another uncivil misrepresentation you have made (you are an admin: start behaving like one). You have, yet again utterly misrepresented me, and now you accuse me of being unproductive for removing second rate prose? And no, it doesn't interfere with the AfD process: those same links to WP:109PAPERS have been recorded in the history if people want to see them and the facts of the matter are as unchanged as they were before. - SchroCat (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

here you go. That's a huge chunk of text and sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As is rather obvious to all, I have removed one sentence, not, as you have claimed "the entire section" nor "a huge chunk of text"; try and get some perspective here. - SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment more coverage out of Guam as it was picked up there before her official game appearance. Also, another interesting reference at HeroSports.com (which may be just some blog, but worth a read knowing that).--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still in WP:109PAPERS territory, and still an uncertain 'record' the school board cannot adequately confirm. - SchroCat (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:1E (at most this is a sentence in some article on US high school football), and are we going to have one of these for every US state? E Eng 20:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:1E. The event is covered at List of female American football players which is probably sufficient. Betty Logan (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Honestly this speaks more about what's seen as "news" in this day and age than anything else. I don't see her having any lasting impact, and in a few weeks.months when the HS football season is in full gear, it will be a footnote. A mention on List of female American football players would suffice. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Samantha Gordon. Wonder if Neher will also get an invitation to the Super Bowl from Goodell and make an appearance on a Wheaties box. Seems strange to delete an article about a young athlete that has received so much international news coverage and not expect the deletion itself to show up in the news - particularly considering the context of her notability. Hmlarson (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a likely candidate for deletion as well, but I'll leave that for someone more interested in the topic area. It certainly needs a severe copyedit. "Her abilities as a football player gained her acclaim when she was nine years old" – oh, for crikey's sake. E Eng 00:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Most articles on wikipedia need copyedits. I'm sure someone will eventually get to it. Hmlarson (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're laughing at. At least some of the sources don't support the text citing it, the tone is way off, and I doubt it would survive AfD for the much the same reason this one won't. E Eng 17:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per exactly what EEng says above. The absolute epitome of WP:BLP1E. ‑ Iridescent 22:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment I know I've mentioned this above, so I'll be brief because it seems to have been missed by recent reviews: WP:BLP1E refers to "Subjects notable only for one event" but the coverage in the news that in my view surpasses general notability guideline includes many days before the event even occurred, as noted by User:WikiOriginal-9 above. It's more than "one event" so that argument should not apply. It's not WP:BLP2E.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:1EVENT. The fact she is the first female athlete who completed a TD pass in Florida is trivial, an ideal story for the media to sensationalize briefly. Being the first in a state -- where is the WP:LASTING impact associated with that?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. And turn down the heat. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eeng, Richie, and SchroCat. Reyk _YO! 06:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm getting really tired of seeing the fluff that the fluff news feeds on Facebook carry here. What's next, a story on every new dress Mrs. Trump wears? Fails 1E. If she makes all-state or gets a scholarship offer, that would be continuing coverage. She's not the first female HS football player (which BTW would also be 1E), she's not the first female HS football player to actually play, she's not the first female HS football player to score. This is nonsense. At some point, people here have got to realize that a Wikipedia article is permanent, unlike a newspaper story. John from Idegon (talk) 07:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we didn't already have WP:BLP1E, this is the kind of article we'd need to create it for. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- AGAIN can someone at least please address why the coverage leading up to the game is being ignored and this is called a "one-event" article when there is clearly coverage for more than one event?--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Paul McDonald, you may want to consider being done posting here, to avoid bludgeoning the process. "Bludgeoning the process is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. ... It is undesirable." WP:BLUDGEON is only an essay, but I think most people would agree the practice it outlines is undesirable. You have complained at ANI about SchroCat's use of rude expressions,[9] and you have a point, but overwhelming the discussion, with however civil wording, isn't polite either. Also, is it just me, or isn't it best practice to acknowledge being the creator of the article you're defending? Bishonen | talk 13:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  - And, Paul, to give my answer to your question, WP:BLP1E is about "Subjects notable only for one event" (my emphasis). In my view, those other mentions in high school sports sections of newspapers really don't do anything to establish notability beyond this one event (even if the one event was confirmed, which it isn't). And the question of whether notability is established beyond one event is decided by consensus via discussion - which is what we are doing here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear BLP1E. Nothing here is encyclopedic content. DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BLP1E does not apply given the coverage that preceded that purported lone event. The backlash against 'trivial rubbish' carries a distinct WP:IDONTLIKEIT tone. Lepricavark (talk) 04:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a non-notable high school student. BLP1E clearly applies. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:54, 13 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 consensus seems to be for keeping as a significant event. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 University of Utah Hospital incident[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Not everything that goes viral has the lasting notability necessary to warrant a Wikipedia article. There is also a serious WP:UNDUE issue at Alex Shaffer (alpine skier) about the same issue now. Per WP:BLPCRIME, the name of the detective should not be in the article (never mind the first line). Basically, officer makes an incorrect arrest, officer is under investigation, and the thing goes viral for a short while. That's why we have newspapers, not why we have encyclopedias. Fram (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 14:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - This is quite a highly publicized and notable incident that could change law enforcement protocol. At a bare minimum, it should be merged with history in tact to University_of_Utah_Hospital#History. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CRYSTAL. "That could change" is the kind of reason whe have NOTNEWS for. Create articles for incidents that actually have changed society in a meaningful way (not some minor adjustment to a local protocol), don't create or keep articles that might perhaps have this effect one day. Fram (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - "This could change law enforcement protocol." Well, it's already changed police policies. That, combined with the changes to hospital protocol, and the widespread media coverage, should make this incident pretty notable. ^Falling_Gravity 17:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Really? A change to the local policy protocol (not national, not even statewide, but local) is making something notable? That's setting the bar very, very low. Incidents like this happen all over the world every day, and constantly change how thngs are done locally. That doesn't make them a notable event in the WP sense. Fram (talk) 20:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just news, not an encyclopedically notable event. Mention it in the article on the individual (limitedly, subject to WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK), but not worth an independent article. Guesswork that it maight change the law does not persuade me. If, in fact, it does end up changing the law, presumably there will be a notable court case, and we can have an article on that. TJRC (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - WP:NOTNEWS at its finest (or worst). As WP:RECENTISM points out, incidents like this seem more important than they truly are. Any argument that this "could be" notable is formed with a WP:CRYSTALBALL and does not display notability now. NOTNEWS is our least enforced policy on Wikipedia; unfortunately, it will only make "articles" -- "news report" is a more accurate descriptor -- such as this more and more common.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ...And the civil rights investigation just changed my mind. Word of advice that every writer should follow: wait for the subject to become notable instead of making well-meaning editors like Fram waste their time with this AfD. There is no rush to hastily put together what was basically a news report rather than an encyclopedic article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is far from a 15 minute news item. It is as notable as the Rodney King Beating was when it first became public knowledge. // Internet Esquire (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Netesq you cannot possibly be seriously, comparing this to King and the LA riots which go hand in hand with his beating. A terribly daft hyperbole to say the least.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am seriously comparing this to the King beating, which I distinctly remember as breaking news. The riots came much later, after the first criminal trial and acquittal. The ongoing criminal investigation of Detective Jeff Payne and others involved in the arrest of Nurse Wubbels is and will remain notable. I might add that The King beating, savage as it was, was not the first or worst case of police brutality caught on tape. Similarly, Nurse Wubbels is not the first nurse to be arrested for refusing a blood draw, neither is she the first to have her arrest videotaped. The impact of her arrest on public opinion is and will remain notable. // Internet Esquire (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:Notability (events): "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards." The incident has had a notable impact on the hospital, the SLCPD, Utah politics, and on those who protested it. This has gotten diverse coverage in both the national (too many to list here) and international press (Ireland [10], the UK [11][12], and Australia [13][14]). Other reliable sources have analyzed the incident from a legal standpoint (i.e. [15][16][17]), though I haven't included them yet out of BLP concerns. As for the concerns about BLPCRIME, I modeled the article after other articles about police brutality cases, so it isn't in any "crimes" categories like "Category:July 2017 crimes in the United States", so whether or not he did commit a crime is up to the reader to decide for now. ^Falling_Gravity 04:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You cite "widespread (national or international) impact" and then go on to discuss local impact. That's why it isn't a notable event. Fram (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seems like every day we get more evidence that this incident has had a national impact. Yesterday we learned the Federal Bureau of Investigation was investigating the case and helping local investigators. ^Falling_Gravity 16:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The video was viewed tens of millions of times over the course of a week and had extensive media coverage. It has lead to policy changes at the hospital in question and may very well have effects elsewhere. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 23:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pikamander2 the policy change is a very localized event: read WP:GEOSCOPE. Media coverage and views? Try WP:NOTNEWS. It "may very well have effects elsewhere"; well maybe you should read WP:CRYSTALBALL before making such an assertion. Perhaps consider applying these policies and changing your vote. Wikipedia is not a newspaper but we have WikiNews if this type of story interests you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In my opinion, this does meet our standards for inclusion, especially now that the District Attorney has asked the FBI to investigate potential civil rights violations under the color of authority.[18] I would also note that when I see an AfD where every delete !vote goes unchallenged and every keep !vote immediately receives one or more critical comments in response, I begin to suspect WP:BLUDGEONING. I am not saying that this is the case here, but I would caution that it seems to be leaning that way. --06:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Bluedgeoning, or an indication that many of the keeps were (or contained) poorly thought out statements. "It is as notable as the Rodney King Beating was when it first became public knowledge." and the like... Fram (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Implied assumption: The administrators who evaluate AfDs are incapable of identifying poorly thought out statements unless you educate them. In my opinion, you should put your best argument in your !vote and not comment on others unless they actually make a factual error, as opposed to an argument that you disagree with. And that is the last thing I am going to write in this thread, so that I don't become part of the problem I am describing. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the assumption is that editors !voting should be made aware why their !vote is (partially) invalid or against policy. It's a discussion, not a vote, so discussing opinions one disagrees with (with of course an explanation of why you disagree, preferably based on policy and guidelines) is welcome. Fram (talk) 08:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major news and notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FallingGravity has shown international sources that establish widespread notability. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - far from the ordinary, this bizarre incident has already started changing police training and hospital procedures. Bearian (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is also one of those only-in-Wikipedia connections between an Olympian and a SCOTUS case. Bearian (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS and because it fails WP:EVENTCRITERIA. A distinctly WP:ODD incident that, for whatever reason, perhaps mere silly season, or the man bites dog aspect of a case in which a policy disagreement between a police officer and a nurse escalates to the point where the police officer actually handcuffs and arrests the nurse. It caught the national fancy for a moment. But there has been indication that this is part of a broader issue of any sort, although the hospital and police dept. obviously needed to show the public that they were reviewing, upgrading procedures to reestablish public confidence. As Nom says, this is a textbook instance of WP:NOTNEWS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:59, 13 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. (WP:SNOW close). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2022[edit]

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

WP:Crystal. I'm sorry but this article makes no sense - unless WP doesn't exist in 2022, the article can just be created then. Right now it's just a placeholder.. which is not a reason for a page to exist. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article was also PRODed by a third-party user, with the creator removing it (which is WELL within their rights to do so, just noting). ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, way too soon for this. Also if the article is recreated then the title should be "...in the next United Kingdom general election" until a date has been set. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  13:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How are we supposed to know when its going to happen? A snap election might happen next week for all we know. WP:CRYSTAL undoubtedly covers this. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only becomes valid if the next general election is announced AND it takes place in 2022. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and it would make sense to wait until 2022 until we have this article. We do not even know whether the next General Election will be in 2022 (it could be in 2021) yet. Vorbee (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no substantive need for this to exist as a placeholder page this far in advance of an election that may not even be in 2022. No prejudice against recreation once the election happens and thus we actually know whose names to actually add to it. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list is empty, and could remain empty forever if there is no election in 2022.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the ~~2020~~ 2017 General Election proved that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 is not sufficient guarantee of the next general election's date. It remains WP:CRYSTAL. Cabayi (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no guarantee the election will take place in 2022. Irrespective of that, this article is completely pointless. There is absolutely nothing to say until after the election. AusLondonder (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far WP:TOOSOON. Ajf773 (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't even know that there is going to be a general election in 2022, given that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 was essentially set aside at its first trial. Goodness, there may not even be a United Kingdom by then, at the present rate of things. Fiachra10003 (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 15:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Anthony Schmidt[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC or WP:CREATIVE Pontificalibus (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One book Byron and the Rhetoric of Italian Nationalism with a few published reviews isn't enough by itself for WP:AUTHOR (I think that needs more than one, and his only other book-length publication is an edited volume). And although some fall only a little short, nothing else in the article rises to the level of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass notability guidelines as either a writer or an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the Crow Flies (comics)[edit]

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

Probably fails WP:GNG, very specific article about 4 comics in a 630+ book run. Not suited for wikipedia, more suited for, dc.wikia.com A Guy into Books (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete. The review coverage offered looks WP:ROUTINE, and a quick google reveals nothing I'd consider a reliable secondary source establishing notability. --Killer Moff (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable storyline, and no reasonable merge target. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:43, 7 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) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Satya (Bhojpuri film 2017)[edit]

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

queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reference at all to meet WP:GNG. Robert G. (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable references. No reviews or other information to establish film notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it has two news sources now Atlantic306 (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the newly added sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. One of two sources added by Dileepmaa calls the film "Superhit" and there are some Hindi news articles that mention the film. However, I'd like to see better sources. utcursch | talk 16:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In looking:

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

WP:INDAFD: सत्या Satya 2017 film

Keep The apparently ignored WP:BEFORE shows sourced were avaialble even if not originally used, and under WP:IMPROVE, WP:IMPERFECT, WP:HANDLE and WP:SEP we fix, not delete over an inability to look. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
speedy Keep as per user Schmidt. Egaoblai (talk) 08:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ralf Zhivanaj[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, he has only played with the B team and youth teams and thus fails WP:NFOOTY. Fram (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not yet notable Spiderone 10:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serkan Basha[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY, has only played for the U-17 team. Fram (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The keep arguments are not supported by policy--they basically amount to HE EXISTS. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yoni Sherbatov[edit]

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

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

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

Papaursa (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable fighter. Does not come even close to meeting either WP:NBOX or WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. PRehse (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 12:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 12:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Weak Keep ^{19:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)} ~~Keep~~ - UFC pro-fighter, unbeaten pro-mixed martial arts - several RS satisfy WP:V ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he doesn't compete in the UFC. Papaursa (talk) 23:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused...what is this? It claims to be ufc.com so please explain. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Fighter show is essentially a tryout for fighters. The winner receives a UFC contract. The show's bouts are considered exhibition fights and do not count towards notability. Neither the UFC nor any other organization includes these fights in the fighter's record. It's like a minor league baseball all-star game where the participants are hoping to impress the scounts to get an invitation to the big leagues. Papaursa (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thx Papaursa, I downgraded to a weak keep because while his BLP may very well be too soon, he did get the attention of the top tier, was added to the cast and fought in (lost) a highly notable UFC promotion. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you're not deterred by the fact that he lost in the first round and doesn't appear to meet any notability criteria? This claim looks like WP:BLP1E. Papaursa (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's passes, but will go with whatever consensus determines. I think his being the Xcessive Force Fighting Champion qualifies him, as does the fact that he was added to the UFC cast, and the articles like this one by Gerbasi of UFC, and the interview by Fight Network, and USA Today Sports, the Fox Sports replay, the Journal de Montreal article, and the MMA Weekly article "Biggest Upset in TUF History Happened This Week", and numerous other articles in 3rd party RS (some in French and other languages). If he wasn't notable, we would not see headlines like the "Biggest Upset in TUF History" when he lost the UFC fight. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UFC.com is not an independent source and the other sources you mention are passing mentions or routine sports reporting on his one TUF fight. In the past, appearing on TUF hasn't been considered enough to show a fighter was notable--even if he won a fight. I would consider redirecting this article to The Ultimate Fighter: Tournament of Champions. Ignoring the SPAs, I just don't think he merits an individual article at this time. Papaursa (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many of the sources are not independent or reliable, while the rest are just routine sports reporting. He has no top tier fights so he fails to meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters at WP:NMMA. At best this article was created WP:TOOSOON. Papaursa (talk) 23:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All content on his wikipedia is well referenced, he signed a contratc with ACB, his first fight is On Oct 14 in Montreal, 2 other fights are scheduled for early 2018. He is a flyweight Champion from xffc8. I think his page should Not be deleted. This page is well presented and should stay! Lodovich 11 September 2017 (UTC)

— Lodovich (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep -clearly all information is referenced, he was part on a UFC tv show TUF24 , undefeated Canadian pro MMA fighter. signed a contract with ACB ( a growing Russian sport league in the MMA industry.) Page is very well set up, presented and professional. Most definitely keep, he is an Athlete that is making his proof in the mixed martial art world User:juliering 11 September 2017 (UTC)

— juliering (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment This discussion appears to be attracting new users who don't understand the notability criteria for MMA fighters. Simply being a pro MMA fighter (or any other athlete) is not sufficient to show notability. See WP:NMMA for the notability criteria for MMA fighters. They also don't realize that routine sports coverage does not make someone notable. Papaursa (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did read and I do understand the notability aspect of the WP:NMMA Yes he doesn’t meet the criteria/characteristics but it should be used as a guideline. He is a ACB signed Athlete. I do understand that ACB is considered a second tier promoter but they have come a long way in the industry. I also understand that some uniformity is expected on the pages created. I do respect any outcome and decision that will be taken for his page. However, I do hope that members are willing to be innovative by keeping his page. juliering 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Keep In reference to other previous comments, I have reviewed the page from a professional standpoint. The page for Yoni Sherbatov is very well written and the facts being presented within it are well referenced also. WP:NMMA I do read and understand that he does not meet these certain requirements. He is a well known within the MMA and boxing community as a well respected fighter. I think that there should be a mid-level category for fighters that arent at the top elite status. As to appreciate all fighters at different points within their fighting status. I think many other people would benefit from these changes being made too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.37.187.94 (talk • contribs) 12 September 2017 (UTC)

— 24.37.187.94 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

What you seem to be saying is that although he doesn't meet any WP notability criteria, he should have an encyclopedia article anyway. Being "mid-level" and "well respected" doesn't distinuguish him from millions of other people in other professions. It's true that if we ignore the notability criteria "many other people would benefit from these changes being made" (if your goal is to include as many people as possible), but that's not WP's goal. Papaursa (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Athanasios Chatzis[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Oleola (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -He fails badly on all criteria. →34kor34 (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 16:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Progressive Web Apps[edit]

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

Article is merely a list of web apps (with accompanying external links), not all of which have Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is not a links directory. ... discospinster _talk 13:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although I created the article, the list of PWAs was not collected by myself but rather just taken from the article about PWAs itself, where it did not fit and was not formatted at all. There, the list was added by an anonymous user in June (see diff). I removed some links which were rather spam than informative and added the scores in the PWA audit of some of the websites. However, I totally see discospinster's point that the list is still rather a link directory at the moment. The optimal solution in my opinion would be to expand the article by adding all the specific web technologies used in each PWA as a separate column to have an overview what makes them special. This should be done by a web expert. The inferior alternative (again in my opinion) would be to reintegrate the list into the original article. To avoid the clutter like it has been before, the table should then be collapsed by default. In a nutshell, I am for Keeping the list - preferred as separate article but at least reintegrated into the original article again. Chstdu (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If none of the entries are notable, why should we list them? Maybe there's an informational value there, I don't know, but there's also the option of just having RS-supported examples integrated into the prose of the parent article. postdlf (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, firstly for WP:NOTLINKFARM, secondly because none of the list entries have articles therefore their notability is not established (and cannot be from this list article), thirdly using words "progressive" in the title of the list article without any clear list criteria would consititute as original research. Ajf773 (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just some short comments/clarifications on your last two arguments: 2. The list entries are not thought to be notable, because they are rather technical examples for good programming style, e.g., the first list entry "The Air Horner" (which is one of the standard PWA examples) does nothing more than playing a sound on clicking. The PWA audit score by Google's lighthouse shows how "good" these examples are. 3. The term "progressive" does not refer to anything political or debatable in this context. It rather means that the website offers a valid web app manifest file (see Google developer or Progressive web app or the W3C working draft for details). Chstdu (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I get where the term "progressive is used for the purposes of this article" but my first argument of WP:NOTLINKFARM still stands. Ajf773 (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:LISTN for lack of sources that discuss them as a group. A non encyclopedic collection of information. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete seems like this could be easily incorporated into the Progressive web apps page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egaoblai (talk • contribs) 05:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 16:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hate Hurts You (public service announcement)[edit]

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

Non-notable PSA reddogsix (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I... umm... delete? TimothyJosephWood 21:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly this public service announcement existed, but no sources have been provided to prove its notability beyond a brief mention on the pop culture website RetroJunk.com. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care! I think it should be on Wikipedia. I have NO IDEA why you'd want to delete the-- OHHHHH I see. But could you at least not delete the page? It's just that I don't really know how to be a Wikipedia user.

1. It's on TV Tropes. That's how i found it.

2. A man named Radio Landscape made a remix. That's how popular it is...?

I really don't know what to say. Somebody help me!

[[19]] --Kaettekita T. Lavhey (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm not saying this PSA is a bad topic to have a Wikipedia article about, but on the other hand it hasn't been established as being a good topic to have an article about, either. The main issue we are dealing with is notability. As expressed in the general notability guideline, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The Retrojunk page cited in the article is not from a particularly reliable source, as Retrojunk seems to accept articles from anybody, nor is it significant coverage since Retrojunk's item is only three sentences long. I found various references to this PSA on message boards and the like (see [20] and [21], for example), but those aren't reliable sources either. I enjoy reading TV Tropes, but as user-generated content, it's not considered a reliable source. Radio Landscape does not seem to be a famous remixer, or at least he doesn't have an article on Wikipedia yet, so he doesn't contribute much to notability. I actually did find a reliable source (the Chicago Tribune) that mentioned the PSA ([22]), but the Tribune article has less than one sentence about the PSA, so that's not significant coverage. So I think that if this PSA is to have a Wikipedia article, it will be necessary for someone to delve into whatever offline sources might exist and find much better sourcing in terms of significant coverage from reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: PSA: We need more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article. There is not enough information from reliable sources to write an encyclopedic article on the subject, and I don't see it being a reasonable search term given the disambiguator (although I could be convinced otherwise on that part). That being said, I think it is reasonable to mention the PSA on the Jewish Chautauqua Society article, given the Chicago Times article (which is a great find!) menaechmi (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 16:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bubble Struggle[edit]

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

This article was incorrectly PRODded by another editor. It was recreated in 2014 by Coin945 without merit as there are no reliable sources even for the sequels. I agree with the spirit of the PROD, that it fails WP:GNG and should be WP:SALTed. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 12:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't believe the sourcing is sufficient to meet the WP:GNG, and even if it was, the article really should be entirely redone - right now, it's almost entirely direct quotes. Like 90% of the content is direct quotes, and there's zero actual prose beyond things like "This website said "(insert excessively long direct quote)". Sergecross73 msg me 15:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A total of four hits in the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, including one Metacritic listing. Not enough coverage. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:54, 8 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.

Michael Nikoletseas[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. czar 16:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Grant[edit]

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

Contested Prod by the author but subject comes no where close to meeting WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. PRehse (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 09:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have this page watchlisted because I submitted an AfC draft on behalf of the creator, but I must agree with the nomination. @Etagmma: the article is fairly well-written, it is not about getting further improvements in the form; see Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the creator's note below, I tend to think a speedy delete by WP:G7 would be appropriate. If you agree, feel free to nominate. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concur Deletion

Thank you Reviewers for your constructive input and expertise in advising for Eric Grant’s article.

I have completely read over Notability in context as to how it applies to the overall article and its MMA category.

I also concur that not enough notability exists at this time whereby in due time through career advancement and recognition that notability will arrive naturally.

I appreciate the mention that the article was well written and sharing awareness of how to improve it.

The article will be submitted at a later date with updated notability associated to it once more prominence in Eric’s fighting career has evolved.

Kind regards, Etagmma (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)etagmma[reply]

Delete per nom. The subject is one of many competitive martial artists with nothing more than routine coverage. Fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine sports coverage fails to meet WP:GNG and no top tier fights means he doesn't meet WP:NMMA. The biggest thing on his resume is a minor organization's amateur title that he won by forfeit when the other fighter didn't show up. Papaursa (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 16:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Physiocrine[edit]

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

A PubMed search returns no results. A Google search returns pages of results related to the company atyrpharma.com. On one of their pages they state "We refer to these extracellular signaling regions of tRNA synthetases, along with splice-variants of the regions of tRNA synthetases, as Physiocrines". This term has been coined by this company and hasn't gained widespread usage. Pontificalibus (talk) 07:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable neologism that only appears with regard to aTyr Pharma's press releases (which, by the way, have been plagiarized in creating parts of this article). Article is not describing a scientific concept, it is marketing a drug concept. Agricolae (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term does not seem to be used except as a "branding" effort by aTyr Pharma. I strongly suspect this article is the product of undisclosed paid editing. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I got the same impression, potential COI issues. Agricolae (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - not really something that exists. bd2412 T 02:31, 7 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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous harvest[edit]

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

Deprodded with "The cited source appears to fully cover the content of this article.", but that does nothing to assert notability. This seems to be a mere dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment a google search reveals mainly guides on Cannabis growing. I cant see any notability, so really this should be migrated to Wiktionary. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I checked this, and while you're right that the concept is common in that area, removing it from Google search still leaves thousands of other sources. The concept is used in cell culture, notably for stem cells; for vegetables, and for home-grown fruit. There is a considerable literature on continuous harvest in the self-reliant area, and in urban agriculture. This is an obvious Keep. And I dare say that even hemp harvesting contributes to the topic's notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep I don't know what someone is smoking, but a GBooks search yields a long string of hits on gardening books discussing techniques for obtaining a continuous harvest rather than all at once. It's not ever going to be that long of an article, but so what? Mangoe (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep Google Books search indicates numerous sources discussing various approaches to maintaining a continuous harvest of vegetables over the course of a growing season, contrasted with a one-time or periodic harvest. The term is also used in forestry, referring to the same concept in harvesting trees (GBooks: "continuous harvest forestry"). The currently cited reference describes specific methods for continuously harvesting vegetables, including crop selection and harvest windows, and succession planting. This is an agricultural/horticultural topic, with numerous reliable sources, and not simply a dictionary definition. --Tsavage (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Expandable article about a notable topic. See source examples below; more are available. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 06:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable concept for which it is useful to have an article. bd2412 T 02:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't get the reason for the nomination. This is obviously a notable article for an encyclopedia. Bearian (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Northamerica1000: Don't you just love how these sources magically add themselves to the article the second you find them?
@Bearian: If it's so notable, then why is the article a pathetic microstub that has been gathering dust for a decade? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: That does not address the fact that everyone screams "keep, it's notable, here are sources" but no one wants to step up to the plate and fix the article. Do you plan to do this, or are you just going to palm it off to someone else just like always? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should consider improving the article yourself, rather than ordering others to do so. Regarding "are you just going to palm it off to someone else just like always", nothing could be further from the truth. I have improved many AfD-nominated articles, both during and after nominations. Ultimately, it is patronizing for you to expect AfD participants to be somehow obligated to improve articles you nominate for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: Because literally every time I nominate an article for AFD and someone digs up sources, no one ever, ever, EVER bothers to add the goddamn sources. And then I check five years later, and the article is still gathering dust because everyone's just sitting on their hands waiting for everyone else to do it. And it infuriates me that people are only willing to dig up the sources, but never willing to actually improve the article. Even worse when they throw around "There is no deadline" as an excuse. How about actually carrying through on proving the notability instead of just half-assing, hmm? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Er, Tuberculosis in popular culture. But I can't fix the whole encyclopedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I only perform at AfD whole-assed, never half-assed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It also could be that after putting up with spiteful nominations and abuse during AfD discussions, editors, for some reason, lack enthusiasm to make the improvements you're asking for. ~Kvng (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable concept, well expandable, already goes well beyond dictionary definition. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 16:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Page[edit]

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

BLP sourced only to IMDB on a voice actor. Wasn't able to find sources which I feel meet WP:BASIC, I don't see claims that would reach WP:NACTOR. Additional sources welcomed. joe decker ^talk 06:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lots of hits about folks with this name, just nothing in-depth about this particular Oliver Page. Doesn't pass WP:GNG, and I agree that I don't see him passing WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree, but could be fixed if author could find reliable sources Chrisswill (talk) 20:45, 6 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) 09:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lynx Equity Ltd[edit]

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

Per WP:NCORP. The sources need to be checked for WP:CORPDEPTH. A large portion of the sources are briefly state menthes about normal functions of any financial services firm - I don't reel as though their is anything significantly noteworthy about the company that would warrant a WP page at this time. Comatmebro (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This appears to be a borderline case, with several of the sources right on the threshold of CORPDEPTH. The sheer amount of sourcing pushes it over the line, just barely, toward "keep" for me. I also should note that as the nominator it's your responsibility to check the sources for CORPDEPTH before making the deletion nomination, instead of leaving it to others to do so. CJK09 (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added independent in-depth references from reliable sources.ViktoriaCerena (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC) — ViktoriaCerena (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Summoned by ViktoriaCerena on my talk page. Notability is established with the addition of reliable sources detailing the company. Meatsgains (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Copiously referenced with news-release style notices in trade journals, there seems to be nothing in Gnews from the sort of truly independent, reliable business media that would meet satisfy our requirements. I also strongly disagree with the suggestion that the "sheer amount of sourcing" from non-reliable publications somehow pushes this past the mark. I'm not sure why a new WP:SPA has popped up to create this article on a minor ~~Canadian~~ North American financial firm, but I don't think this belongs here, based on the quality -- not mere quantity -- of sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Striking through "Canadian." Company has expanded to the US. Let's add to that deletion sorting, as well, accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is clear that the "Keep" !voters above are misinterpreting the guidelines for notability, especially WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. References derived from company PR, company announcements and normal business announcements do not meet the criteria for establishing notability since they are not "intellectually" independent. The quantity of sources only suggests a functional PR department. ViktoriaCerena suggests that "independent in-depth references from reliable sources" have been added but looking at the sources added, it is clear that while the sources may be independent, the articles are not since they rely almost exclusively on company material with no independent opinion or commentary. For example, this added references from privateequitywire is not independent as it is a joint announcement from the company and the law firm that advised them on an acquisition and fails ORGIND and/or CORPDEPTH. This reference from pehub.com is an interview with the company president, offers no independent commentary or opinion, and fails CORPDEPTH and/or ORGIND. I could go on but you get the point. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- "45th fastest growing finance companies in Canada by Profit Magazine" is hardly a claim of significance. The sources are PR-driven and not independent of the subject; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Basically, corporate spam for a nn organisation. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. should be deleted as an attempt at promotion, regardless of notability, but in addition the sources for notability are insufficiently independent or substantial -- situation which tends to confirm the promotional nature of the article DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 14 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. There is consensus that the article should not be deleted outright, but no consensus as to whether the page should be kept or merged. (non-admin closure) Jax 0677 (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Celor lens[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2006, no sourcing found, dicdef. Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to be a notable lens design. Dedicated book chapter [23], few sentences in another book [24], and more [25]. Lack of references is not a reason for deletion. The requirement is verifiability not verification. Rentier (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rentier: That doesn't fix the article being an obscure dictionary definition that fails to assert notability. My toenails exist and can be verified; does that make them worthy of an article? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: Unless your toenails have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, no. ~Kvng (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be deleted, but merging to Dialyte lens would make sense to me. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A merge would be kind of acceptable, though I'm not sure what it would accomplish. The main article might end up with a disproportionate coverage of the Celor design - or not. It's a fairly specialised subject with most sources hidden behind paywalls, so it's hard to tell. Rentier (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Rentier. Merge can always be considered after AfD has closed. ~Kvng (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources dug up by Rentier. In the interest of consensus, a merge or a selective merge is a reasonable course of action, and may better serve our readers on this specialist topic in optical lens design. --Mark viking (talk) 20:59, 8 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  18:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ransom F. Shoup II[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines for criminals. Little coverage in independent, reliable sources. DrStrauss talk 09:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ~~or merge and redirect to Shoup Voting Machine Corporation#Criminal cases~~. Minor, unnotable crook. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am reminded by my own comments in my previous Afd that his crime is unrelated to the Shoup Corporation, so strike the second option. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:24, 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 03:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The then-lack of an article on the Shoup Voting Machine Corporation seems to have influenced the 2012 Keep decision. The two sentences on the subject's 1979 conviction in the 1988 New Yorker article don't make clear the extent to which the company was implicated so I agree with Clarityfiend in that earlier AfD that merger may not be appropriate. When all is said and done, there is nothing here to indicate the prosecuted event was notable and meet the WP:CRIMINAL criteria. AllyD (talk) 09:29, 6 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. sufficient consensus afte relisting DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Applebaum[edit]

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

Delete: insufficiently notable actor. Quis separabit? 22:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep: i have added the references which prove that she is notable and famous actorMr.ref (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not convinced that the added references show passing notability, and he clearly does not meet the notability criteria for entertainers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep seems notable given the biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egaoblai (talk • contribs) 05:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sign of passing WP:ENT, and the added sources don't convince me either. Actors Improv Studio, which he founded, is also not notable, but one day might be. If it ever is, I would suggest this as a redirect to that page (this is for the benefit of people who read the AfD if this is ever recreated). menaechmi (talk) 15:09, 13 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 by nominator. (non-admin closure). Sulfurboy (talk) 05:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Debajyoti Mukhopadhyay[edit]

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

User has constantly been resubmitting this draft with little to no improvement. A cursory search shows that this person wouldn't likely be notable anyways. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Should have posted in MfD. Sorry for confusion. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep as this article is in draftspace, not mainspace. Take it to MfD. --Finngall ^talk 05:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a mainspace article on him has previously been deleted twice, most recently per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debajyoti Mukhopadhyay. --Finngall ^talk 05:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per a comment in the discussion, the article may need to be renamed. Discussion about this can occur on the article talk page, or the task can perhaps be boldly performed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Turizo Zapata[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, with no discernible claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no reliable source coverage. The most substantive claim of notability here is a vague and unquantified assertion of "widespread popularity", and the only reference is a user-generated public relations platform on which artists can add themselves. This is neither a substantive claim of notability, nor a sufficient depth of sourcing, for the purposes of satisfying NMUSIC. Bearcat (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it might be a touch WP:TOOSOON but there's certainly reliable sources from Colombia about him - in Colombia's two major national newspapers El Tiempo [26] and El País [27], plus the main newspaper of the Carribbean coast where he comes from El Universal [28], the country's main music magazine Shock [29], plus interviews on major radio stations Bluradio [30] and La Mega [31]... there's also trivial mentions from the websites of the country's two state TV channels RCN (singing at the wedding of Alvaro Morata) [32] and Caracol [33], although I'll admit that the last two are trivial mentions light on detail, typical of the output of those TV stations. Richard3120 (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: he's also charted on the Billboard Latin Digital Songs chart [34], although I'm not sure if that's an acceptable chart. Richard3120 (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs more work, but that isn't reason to delete it. This is a valid article about an actual person who recently surged into popularity and needs sources. The task should be sourcing more things rather than deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.126.231 (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it's the article creator's job to do the more work required. Anybody can always simply claim that more sourcing exists for any topic regardless of whether it actually does or not — so we don't keep an article just because somebody says it needs more sources, we keep it when somebody shows hard, quantifiable evidence that more sources are out there. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article creators may be novices, but we can all support with additional research and contributions. I know User:Richard3120 did tremendous work showing all these references from majour outlets. What I have done was to incorporate some of his suggestions within the article to show the clear notability of this delightfully gifted Colombian artist werldwayd (talk) 00:55, 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) 02:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Richard3120's sources look good to me. Antrocent (♫♬) 03:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and rename: Actually the single "Una Lady Como Tú" reached number 7 on the very important and majour Spanish Singles Chart known as PROMUSICAE. Here is the link for that very high position http://spanishcharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Manuel+Turizo&titel=Una+lady+como+t%FA&cat=s Another very notable fact that can be put forth is that the song has attracted as of today 308.5 million views and garnered 44 thousand comments. Hardly a non-notable artist! See the main video upload https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYtJAuoZxcc But the article needs renaming as the artist uses Manuel Turizo and not Manuel Turizo Zapata as we have it, although the latter may be his birth name. The confusion comes because he uses also the acronym MTZ Z denoting Zapata. Manuel Turizo was featured on Valentino's single "Bésame". That music video has gained to date 50.2 million views and attracted around 4,900 comments, again a highly notable figure https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whdnNvybrF4 . werldwayd (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a discography and inserted the peak in Spain. On this occasion, I invite those more knowledgeable with Latin charts to add more peaks in Latin America. I am sadly not in a position to add charts from say Colombia or Venezuela etc. werldwayd (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not easy to add Colombian or Venezuelan charts – both countries' charts are compiled by the Colombian company National-Report, but they only display the current week, and there are no archives, so it's impossible for anyone to check past charts and find the chart peak of a specific record (I've tried writing to National-Report about adding a searchable archive, but they won't answer). Richard3120 (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand lack of fully archived charts in many countries, but I think Manuel Turizo is notable enough even without the chart figures in the Latin world of music to have a Spanish Wikipedia article as well. werldwayd (talk) 04:38, 9 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) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rena Golden[edit]

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

fails WP:CREATIVE as a journalist. most of the sources are from her former employer CNN. LibStar (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep - per work at CNN. Has been described as top of her field. Also per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

there is no inherent notability from working at CNN. fails WP:GNG because almost all sourcing is from CNN. no significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 08:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, some sources in addition to the ones in the article:
- Alex Weprin. "Weather Company Exec, Former CNN Senior VP Rena Golden Dies at 51". Adweek.
- "Celebrated journalist Rena Golden passes away at 51". Rediff.com.
- "The Soft Power of Rena Golden".
- Two paragraph bio in Atlanta Magazine [35]

Antrocent (♫♬) 04:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Article could use expansion and improved referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD.Hmlarson (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per GNG, obviously most stories will be from CNN, but adequate indicia of notability from third-party sources as well. Montanabw^(talk) 18:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus. (non-admin closure) Jax 0677 (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zana Krasniqi[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable pageant winner. Quis separabit? 20:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nomination did not make a case why only this national titleholder for miss universe would be non-notable, did not explain what is wrong with the references that were provided and the others that are readily available, and fails WP:IGNORINGATD. I enjoy working with the nominator and have given him recognition for his work before. That isn't the problem! gidonb (talk) 21:44, 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 02:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Top position in one of the top4 biggest pageants in the world. Also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per a Wikipedia search, this AfD can't delete this topic from the encyclopedia, so the claim that the topic is non-notable is at most, as per WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT, a topic for discussion on the talk page or if necessary at RfC. See also WP:INSIGNIFICANCE. Were there any evidence to support the argument, a wrong venue result might be considered, but no evidence is provided. Unscintillating (talk) 01:47, 12 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  18:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

St. Xavier's Alumni Association[edit]

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

Not a notable club--such organizations frequently aren't, and there is no sourcing that suggests otherwise. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:NORG and specifically WP:ORGDEPTH. --Muhandes (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge into St. Xavier's High School, Patna. bd2412 T 23:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 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 01:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NORG and significant RS coverage not found. The page consists almost entirely of trivia, as in:

"The association also organizes poolside parties for the Patna-based alumni. Besides, it also organizes the reunion of golden and silver jubilee batches every year!"

Etc. Such content belongs on the org's web site, not here. There's no need for a merge / redirect as the name is unlikely to be a valid search term and the target article would not be improved by addition of undue content. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete alumni organisations of high schools are rarely notable and have no value to anyone not connected to the school. LibStar (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Abraham[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Very poorly sourced, out of 13 references 8 fail to verify the content and being one of 735 people to be awarded the non notable Presidents Police Medal for Meritorious Service in 2011 is not really helping with notability. Theroadislong (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Abraham is a notable senior police officer in Kerala. The citation requirement in education, as in the role of City police commissioner in Cochin and Thiruvananthapuram is already given with proper reference link, its published in Government official website, but still its showing "citation required" Please help me to improve and retain the page Trishna2017 (talk) 07:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have comprehensively overhauled the article since its nomination, and have been able to find verified sources for all but two of the remaining unsourced statements. This person, as best as I can understand it, is the highest ranking policeman for the 1.8m population and has generated a fair amount of newspaper coverage over his career. The numerous awards that he's accepted either in his own name or on behalf of his organisation suggest that he has made a considerable contribution to combatting high tech crime in what I read to be the secondmost major city in terms of the digital economy in India. There is potential for further improvement, but I believe I've done enough to rescue the article. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to the latest report Manoj Abraham is one behind the new initiative by Kerala Police "Kidsglove" to create awareness in schools on booby-traps laid by Blue Whale games. news link is here http://kaumudiglobal.com/innerpage1.php?newsid=95528. He is one of the known police officer in Kerala.111.92.2.114 (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For preventing cyber crimes and online threats Manoj Abraham taken strong initiatives, and he is a known Police Officer in Kerala. The following news links proves his recent initiatives

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/no-game-called-blue-whale-cyberdome-chief/articleshow/60128772.cms http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/blue-whale-game-may-or-may-not-be-hoax-it-s-teen-mental-health-we-should-be-talking-about http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/kerala-sitting-on-a-powder-keg/articleshow/60140442.cms http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/initiative-on-road-safety/article19570822.ece http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/kerala-mother-says-teenage-son-hangs-himself-while-playing-blue-whale-challenge/story-QysGVMVzHdVS7oxpGAd2wN.html http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Kochi/tackling-cyber-world-predators-need-of-the-hour/article19526587.ece http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2017/08/16/blue-whale-challenge-game-doesnt-afftect-all-kids-only-ones-wi_a_23079345/ http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/national/kerala-police-to-use-whatsapp-in-battle-against-cyber-crimes/article9809446.ece http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2017/aug/24/cyber-crime-investigation-division-likely-to-get-green-nod-in-kerala-1647497.html http://www.firstpost.com/india/watch-as-blue-whale-challenge-spreads-in-kerala-teachers-parents-and-politicians-gear-up-for-long-and-arduous-fight-3940283.html http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-kerala/cyber-safety-training-for-20000-students/article19522021.ece http://www.ndtv.com/kerala-news/kerala-chief-minister-seeks-ban-on-blue-whale-app-writes-to-pm-1736995 http://www.ndtv.com/kerala-news/kerala-chief-minister-seeks-ban-on-blue-whale-app-writes-to-pm-1736995 http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/police-probing-teenagers-death-in-capital/article19503831.ece http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/2000-downloads-of-blue-whale-game-in-kerala-nope-just-a-hoax-say-cops/articleshow/59917723.cms http://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/in-other-news/190817/kerala-safe-internet-training-for-students.html http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/the-fatal-fifty-tasks-is-blue-whale-killing-youngsters-in-india/story-XZhbCIW13VBs4ZHFn8aEoJ.html http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/i-havent-even-seen-him-playing-candy-crush/articleshow/60104282.cms Jayakumarseo (talk) 06:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is probably next in line to be the head of the police department of the state. Is considered an efficient officer, and has attracted a lot of positive press for the same. More references in prominent Malayalam newspapers - here, here, here, here and here (There ae many more, but I am limiting myself to 5. Interested people may search for മനോജ് എബ്രഹാം for a truckload of more references). Jupitus Smart 15:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thaiwan[edit]

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

Unclear what purpose this is meant to serve. I can't find any source which uses "Thaiwan" for either, or at all. There is a restaurant somewhere called Thaiwan which serves Thai and Taiwanese food, but that doesn't seem relevant here. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 01:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep harmless typo. Also, I can't tell you how many times people have confused Taiwan and Thailand.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A disambiguation page for a typo? Seriously? Maybe in Trumpopedia, where Israel isn't in the Middle East. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Boleyn (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Thryduulf for a possible alternative opinion. – Uanfala 10:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 10:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 10:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Taiwan for which it is a plausible misspelling and/or typo, and I do see google results for that. I don't see anything related to Thailand that isn't a deliberate blend with Taiwan. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having a disambiguation page gives undue credibility to this typo. Given how many people from outside Asia confuse Taiwan and Thailand, we shouldn't fan the flame by propagating mistakes. Deryck C. 15:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since neither of the 2 entries has a mention in the target article, this is WP:G6. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Moeller[edit]

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

Not a notable person. No references and the only claim of notability is an appearance in the Guinness Book of World Records. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a book of world records.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He hasn't gotten much media attention, which surprises me a bit. He could possibly be shoehorned into History of tattooing#Modern Western tattooing I suppose, maybe. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Remperas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still no substantial evidence of notability - her appearances in Filipino soap operas are supporting or bit roles at best. Blake Gripling (talk) 07:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability requirements for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NACTOR. only 1 confirmed significant role. LibStar (talk) 04:15, 6 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 after two relists. (non-admin closure) Jax 0677 (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tennessee Scholastic Lacrosse Association[edit]

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

A7 speedy declined. Group that indicates no standalone notability. DrStrauss talk 15:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I just added some info. This is almost WP:TOOSOON since the Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (TSSAA) hasn't formally recognized them yet, but for now are the organization running high school lacrosse in Tennessee. If they are formally recognized and absorbed into TSSAA, this can be merged and redirected into the TSSAA article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agora.io[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH. Promotional. Kleuske (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails WP:SPIP and GNG. References fail the criteria for establishing notability WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Typical WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thorbjorn Paternò Castello[edit]

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

Judging by his website (www.orderofmaltaosj.com/the-grand-master.html) he appears to be the self-appointed "grand master" of one of the countless fake/self-styled "Orders of Malta". I also note that he is born in 1976 and that all the "sources" in this article were published (mostly years) before he was even born, and that they don't seem related to him in any way. I believe this article is a hoax about a non-notable individual that mainly serves to promote a non-notable, obscure, fake "Order of Malta." Also, the article doesn't really convey any encyclopedic information. Tataral (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of relevance of the references is partly my fault. The article used to have a lot of material about the arrival of the family in Italy in the 11th century, and a lot about a disputed claim to something-or-other that was poorly explained and just seemed out of place in a biography. I removed both, but without inline citations, I couldn't tell which of the references should also be removed. I don't think it is a hoax, but I do think the subject is completely non-notable, and its lack of relevant references would cause it to fail WP:BLP except that it hardly says anything about the actual subject that needs referencing. Delete. Agricolae (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an article that doesn't talk at all about the non notable individual in the title. The family is definitely notable and has its own article. The person really exists and indeed makes the ludicrous claims mentioned by Tataral. Then again, there are tons of fantasy claimants out there and all but a small handful merit their own article. --Kimon^talk 14:59, 12 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.