Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 10: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 52: Line 52:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Doyle (ice hockey)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Doyle (ice hockey)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spuf don}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spuf don}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Class of '58}}
<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Class of '58}} -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulmus americana 'JFS-Prince II' = Colonial Spirit}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulmus americana 'JFS-Prince II' = Colonial Spirit}}
<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spoiled Identity EP}} -->
<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spoiled Identity EP}} -->

Revision as of 00:31, 18 March 2017

< 9 March 11 March >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tevye`s Daugthters

Tevye`s Daugthters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Even correctly spelled and punctuated, I can find no coverage whatsoever for this film. If sources can be found -- perhaps foreign-language? -- I'll gladly withdraw. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oddsmaker

Oddsmaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOT#DICTIONARY applies here. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) J947 02:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The World Tomorrow (radio and television)

The World Tomorrow (radio and television) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been the subject of some pretty bizarre argufying over the claim that the 2004 reboot is different. Looking into these claims, I checked the sources. Only one of them meets WP:RS, and it's an obituary of Art Gilmore that namechecks this subject. The other sources are either primary (e.g. trademark filings cited as sources for the existence of trademarks) or not independent, being affiliated with Herbert W. Armstrong. The sources do not establish WP:GNG. Guy (Help!) 14:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I just did a search and found a few secondary sources for the Julian Assange TV show on Russia Today[3] and for Bruce McCall’s cover story in The New Yorker[4] but all the references to the show by the church seem to be from church publications. I am not seeing any independent evidence of notability. Plus, the article is a magnet for disputes after one or more church splits, each side claiming to be the true continuation of the original church and the original radio show. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - where appropriate - into the Armstrong article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Sadly, the only good way to take care of this dispute is to "send it to a nice farm". KATMAKROFAN (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I found some third-party coverage here and here and others through Google Books... I'm not saying that there's enough to meet notability guidelines (nor that there isn't), just noting the existence of such. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I grew up watching The World Tomorrow with Garner Ted Armstrong up in Montreal. This was may possibly be a notable show. I can find such book refs as this, this, this, this, this, and this -- all from page one of the Gbooks results. There's no shortage out there. I'm searching for "The World Tomorrow" + "Garner Ted Armstrong", btw. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just looked at those references. They are the types of mention that WP:GNG says do not establish notability. You need to show significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Significant coverage" means that the source addresses the topic directly and in detail. "Significant coverage" is more than a trivial mention, which is what the sources you found (and which I had found when I did my search) contain. They do justify a prominent mention of The World Tomorrow on the Garner Ted Armstrong page, which we already have. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that taken as a whole, there's more than trivial coverage here. But the fact that program was clearly internationally syndicated -- since I watched here on a Montreal local station for years -- means that it meets WP:TVSERIES, as well: "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope)." Of course, the "network" would in this case not be literal, it would be some combination of individual stations in what must have been first-run syndication, but international in scope. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it was syndicated per se; it seems more like a show that would've simply purchased airtime, like a half-hour ad, and that puts a strain on its appearance in various markets as an indicator of notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. I hadn't considered that. It's quite possible I suppose, as part of the church's outreach. It aired on Sunday mornings. I'm moving to weak keep, above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at episodes of the current series bearing the name (I am among those unconvinced that it's the same show in a technical sense) on YouTube, I see that they are 28-minutes-and-some-seconds long... i.e., there's no room for ads in the middle of the episode. That means that they are almost certainly brokered programming; a current half-hour meant to have ad placement would be about 6 minutes shorter. From my very slight memories of the earlier version, it was likely the same. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who watched the show on the local station in Saskatoon, Canada, I can attest to the fact that I don't recall them ever having paid commercial ads within the show, just ads for World Tomorrow publication. However something that needs to be pointed out is at least in the 1970s Sunday-morning religious programming - at least on Canadian TV stations - never aired with regular advertising. I don't think the stations allowed it. So Day of Discovery, Rex Humbard, and any of the others that aired at that time aired without standard commercials. One other point: paid programming usually didn't warrant its own TV Guide listings (referring to the magazine), but World Tomorrow did, albeit it was identified as "Garner Ted Armstrong" as per the standard format where shows hosted by people were usually listed under the host's name (i.e. Johnny Carson, not "Tonight"). My vote on this is to keep though having just dipped my toe into this article there are definitely some edit war-related issues happening. 23skidoo (talk) 06:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While I certainly cannot speak to the specifics of the Canadian situation, brokered programming is the default for such broadcasts in the US; their regular presence in a time slot may be more what got them in the listings than the question of whether they were paid programming. (Certainly, we've had listings for things like Easy Money (TV series), a primetime series where an outside organization leased time from a network.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As NatGertler says I don't think this was syndicated. It was paid placement. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Effectively an infomercial? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When a church buys air time, runs no commercials other than encouraging people to join the church. and the church just happens to teach "triple tithing" (giving 30% of your gross pretax income to the church)[5] I think "infomercial" is a fair description. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They could have made it look more like a normal show by instead running commercials for the Vegematic or the Pocket Fisherman during breaks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting, but it doesn't meet the requirements of WP:GNG. I have seen claims by affiliated churches[6][7][8] and by a critic[9] that republican senator Bob Dole ordered preservation of the World Tomorrow television episodes in the Library of Congress, but I cannot find a reliable source confirming that claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I expect it's true, but not that impressive; that would seem like a politician writing a letter on behalf of a constituent/contributor. It's not on the same level of something being named to the American film preservation list or somesuch. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep User:Shawn in Montreal memory is reliable. This program was a bid deal back in the day. Editors have run into our endemic problem: searches fail to readily produce sources on stuff that happened before the internet. I am basing my keep on a paywalled Proquest news archive search. Paywalls contribute to WP's unfortunate presentism bias.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added 2 sources. Copious, reliable, in-depth sources come up on a news archive search of "The World Tomorrow" + Armstrong. An editor with access to a news archive and time could readily make this into a good article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are those additions:[10] Because they are paywalled, I would ask E.M. Gregory to reproduce the wording where he believes that the requirements of WP:GNG have been met here ("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. 'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention..."). Reproducing such material is allowed under fair use. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 21:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I'm not against merging (I'm an inclusionist), merging this into an already large article about the author would be cramming too much into one small space. Easily notable: WP:RS. Even less-well-known authors are notable, so much more Armstrong.96.59.183.125 (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep somehow -- This seems to be the lead broadcast ministry of Armstrong, who was on the fringes between evangelical Christianity and heresy. Radio Church of God, which he established from this program, still exists (though renamed); that link is a redirect to Grace Communion International. If it is merged, that (rather than Armstrong) should be the target. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment' Wow! It's pretty embarrassing when your program is more noteworthy than you. (And it would be kept, with you merging into it!) Ha ha hah... Well, I guess Armstrong isn't going to complain to much about it. In all seriousness, I like your logic: His program may be his identity, so maybe it should be kept, and him merged into it. But in any case, either he or his program should be kept. Maybe not both, though, since a redirect and/or reference could be used.96.59.169.231 (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sportacus

Sportacus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This should be deleted because first of all, it only has two sources. Also, the page has multiple problems.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is yet another case of perspective-based lack of familiarity being used as a cudgel in the neverending crusade of deletionism. The submitter may not know who Sportacus is, but I expect tons of other Wikipedians do. I could see supporting a merge and redirect into another article, but not outright removal. - Keith D. Tyler 17:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Case in point, the actor-athlete who plays the character won his nation's lifetime achievement award for portraying this character. If that doesn't support notability, I don't know what does. I suspect if it had been an Emmy or a Grammy or a BAFTA the submitter would not think this was non-notable.
  • Keep The article has two sources now, making the one source claim moot. The other problems should be fixed, but they do not warrant the article to be deleted.--Snaevar (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Snaevar:@KeithTyler: I would recommend that both of you look up further sources (preferably third-party, reliable sources that show how this subject has received significant coverage). The article only has two sources right now, which does not adequately secure its notability. One is for the show's official website and does not help in supporting notability, while the Time one is helpful, but a single source cannot be cited to support the need for and notability of an entire article. The Time source is dead and needs to be revive through a website archive. The information about the actor winning his nation's lifetime achievement award for his character is important, but if there is not further information about the character himself (either from the production or reception angles), then the information about the award could easily be covered in the article for the show without the need for this particular article. Either way, the information about the award and sourcing to support is not present in the article currently. Here are some ideas for sources to use from a brief Google search (I have not read through this articles so some of them may not be useful; also, double-check to see if they are reliable or not. I believe a majority of them are, but it always good to make absolutely sure), but I would highly encourage both of you to look for more: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. Remember sources are key to prevent articles from being deleted. It appears to me that this character has received significant coverage in some way, but I am not completely certain either way to cast a vote. Throwing accusations against the nominator is generally not a good idea. Good luck with this! @Shawn in Montreal: I apologize for the long message and jumping on this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 21:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @User:Aoba47: Let me clarify. By mentioning that the article has two sources, I am only making the point that even though the article had one source at the time of nomination, it did not when I voted. There is no hidden agenda here, just mentioning that the article has changed since then. The other problem, that it has too much focus on the fictional aspect, is an styling issue and is not mentioned in Wikipedia:Deletion policy. It is not mentioned in any guideline or policy as an reason for deletion. Sure, it does warrant the article to have an maintainance tag, but nothing more. Please, ask first when you think that I have not given an argument behind my statements.
Also, take a look at Special:Diff/769681616.--Snaevar (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Snaevar: I am not sure why you are reacting so negatively to my above post as I am not commenting on you having a "hidden agenda" or that you "have not given an argument behind your statements". I am merely offering advice about handling an AfD. I do not believe that your reason to keep the article is strong, particularly this part (the article has two sources now, making the one source claim moot). The two sources provided in the article do not adequately cover the "source claim" as they do not adequately show by themselves that this subject has received significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources (and both links are dead so that also needs to be fixed through a website archive most likely). I have seen that you have added additional sources since that comment and put in a "Reception" section, which I think will be extremely helpful when proving this article's notability and reason to not be deleted. If an article is entirely focused on in-universe information, it could actually be a reason for someone to nominate it for deletion as he or she may not believe there is enough information to create out-of-universe information/sections. I am honestly just surprised at the tone of your comment. I was just trying to help by offering advice and some sources that you could use; no reason to be negative to someone who tried to help. Aoba47 (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Olivi

Megan Olivi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article should be deleted as it is not notable under WP:GNG as it does not have any significant coverage in reliable sources only in unreliable WP:RSs (such as iMDb and social media sites). A WP:BEFORE search did not return any useful sources. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions) 04:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Fighters Only Magazine reported on her and her TV crew avoiding ejection from a Superbowl event, although that seems rather trivial. There's a brief profile from her days as a Padres reporter here. And her defence of UFC from Meryl Streep's infamous attack at the Golden Globes has got some coverage [11] [12]. That may be enough to drag her over the GNG borderline.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Changed to definite keep, see my second comment.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

::Weak keep, same rationale as Pawnkingthree.RudyLucius (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The coverage from her employers, Fox and the UFC, can hardly be considered independent. Her work promoting either/both of those also doesn't seem to qualify as significant independent coverage. I am not voting yet in order to see if those advocating for the article to be kept can come up with some truly significant independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When I look at the article I see an IMDB bio posted by her agent, her own web site, a brief article about her husband with a passing mention of her, and a blog online interview. As for the articles mentioned in this discussion, she got mentioned in a list of people supporting a Dana White (her UFC boss) comment, a mention of a tweet she made on the same subject, a blog post about her being hired to be a Padres reporter for Fox, and an article about her pushing the UFC at a Superbowl event where Jay Glaser was able to keep her and her crew from being booted out. I'm not seeing the significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just found this in depth interview with The Province, a major Canadian newspaper. This is definitely "significant coverage" in a reliable independent source.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 21:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was not delete. Whether this article should be merged with another is a discussion that can occur on the relevant talk pages. Kurykh (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The White Ox

The White Ox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested redirect and PROD. Fails notability, either WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Redirect was contested so I suggest a complete deletion unless there is evidence that there are a lot of page views. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Author Keep/Merge/Procedural Close. This is the wrong venue for the action the nominator is attempting to accomplish. He first redirected the article to the artist page; I reverted and suggested a merge to the artist article or to a unified discography article, since the current article is composed of encyclopedic discographical information, even if it's probably not enough to merit a stand-alone article (under current consensus rules). Rather than support a merge, the nominator moved on to PROD and now AfD the article. But deletion isn't a sensible action to take; even if the content is merged, it would still be desirable to leave a redirect to the artist discography. Chubbles (talk) 07:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I wrote on my talk page, when you moved the discussion from your talk page to mine against the edit notice on my page, you're welcome to move the unsourced content to wherever you want. The deletion discussions don't preclude that. What's not sensible is keeping an article that fails notability guidelines around just so someone can some day merge the content somewhere. And to clarify the order was redirect, revert, PROD, contested prod and merge proposal. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • From whence this "move it or lose it" demand? I fail to see why the nominator feels justified in making demands of me as a volunteer under threat of deletion. I don't feel compelled to execute the merge myself, though he is welcome to do it. In any case, deletion is not a legitimate course of action to take here even if the article is judged non-notable; merging is, in that case. Chubbles (talk) 07:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • When it was a redirect, the history was there, yet you decided to restore a non-notable recording despite a complete lack of sourced because the information should be saved. That's just not done. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • The information to be saved is basic discographical information - year, label, track list. All of this comes from the published work itself; do you want a footnote from the liner notes? Chubbles (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets the WP:GNG per coverage from from AllMusic, Exclaim, and Billboard. Not a lot, but enough to write up a decent stub for an EP. Sergecross73 msg me 19:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 21:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, as the player (from what I understand) fails WP:RLN and is not otherwise notable. There was a recent discussion of this at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Discussion of WP:RLN but no consensus to change the guideline. Mackensen (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re there has been a discussion, but it is more accurate to state that no alternative has yet been put forward, rather than no consensus being reached.Fleets (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Callum Bustin

Callum Bustin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bustin fails WP:RLN as he has not played in the Super League or NRL. He also has only played one match in the Championship, the division below the Super League, and has no other claims to notability so does not meet the GNG in any other way. Mattlore (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you delete a professional full time sportsman's profile? **** — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.129.5 (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 03:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 21:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Essentially, opinion is divided as to whether Kaur meets WP:BLP1E or not. The article has been improved with additional sources such as the Indian Express, which makes the earliest "Delete" votes problematic to judge. The most recent votes add little to the existing ground covered, so I think closing as "no consensus" (which defaults to keep) is the best option. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gurmehar Kaur

Gurmehar Kaur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With due respect to Kaur, but i nominate this bio for deletion because I believe she is notable only for a single event and no other claims of notability thus falling under WP:BLP1E. --Saqib (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.altnews.in/wore-btch-rndi-postitute-indian-right-wings-response-gurmehar-kaur/
  • Pointing - Even Kanhaiya Kumar should be considered with the same cited above. Like in case of Gurmehar Kaur , we can not declare some one notable just because of her some posts on social media. The event is not significant nor the individual's role. She is not having any reputed designation or running any organization. She just relate with one event only. Her information should be merged in the specific event. Wikipedia is not news so any news notable biography should not be here. सुमित सिंह (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pointing Language of article is also not written in neutral point of view and comes under WP:ASSERT. How it can say that Virender Sehwag and others made fun on her. This article just following social media status and posts favoring specific person or community and not having real facts. सुमित सिंह (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@सुमित सिंह: User:6033CloudyRainbowTrail has fixed some issues in the article regarding neutrality. Online activism is also an important task nowadays.--Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 17:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject of the article has been significantly covered independently and personally by various reputed independent journalism houses. Article seems to look good minus the primary you tube links provided which i have removed in my contribution. There also no doubt should remain regarding merger as events and incidents do not take place into being until people related to it make it happen thus stand a crystal clear notability to have an article in main space. Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source. Thank you. Pragmocialist (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I disagree. This is not a case of WP:BLP1E. The subject was in the headlines earlier as well. @सुमित सिंह: Online social activism is also a thing nowadays. Wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia, let us try to accommodate all notable biographies.Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 10:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Satdeep Gill: Can you please explain why the subject was in news earlier? and also please feel free to link those sources here. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GSS-1987: Notable sources like the Indian express have written about her in 2016 as well, check this. While now she is in the headlines for another campaign which is against ABVP. Although her previous activism is also being appreciated. --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 10:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The source you provided above is what she is back in news these days, being a part of a campaign does not make one notable independently and she grabbed the attention because of her viral video and being trolled by some notable people. As per the recent news, she is not a part of the campaign anymore so I see it as a non-notable individual and believe this article should be deleted under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GSS-1987: Actually no, check this link. Now, she is in the news for her stand against the conflict at Ramjas College in Delhi. So, there are at least two different campaigns and a lot of coverage. One campaign was anti-war and this one concerns DU protests. Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 17:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not almost but one and all coverage of this individual is related to a viral video. Per WP:BLP1E: "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event", "that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual", "the event is not significant", "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article." If Kaur starts getting press coverage unrelated to that Indo-Pak peace message video there's grounds for a full biography, but as it stands the article is just restating the news coverage and I don't see if the current event is notable itself that I can suggest a redirect. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Check new news articles like this about her which prove that she is not notable for just the Indo-Pak video. --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 16:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Satdeep Gill:: Let me clear it here that Wikipedia's guidelines and or policies doesn't specify that the notability of a person can be determined merely on press coverage. I think having the concept of notability for a person on press coverage is dangerous. This may gives the control to news agencies so that they may establish notability of a person merely on the basis of writing pieces about that person. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not News therefore merely being covered by news agencies does not simply establish notability, it establishes coverage, at least in my opinion. --Saqib (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib: What i defened above is the fact that the person is not notable for just one event. The press converage was used to verify that. --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 00:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ChunnuBhai: Indian express is a reliable source in India; check this article about her which was published in 2016. Now she is in the news for another campaign that concerns DU conflicts. Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 17:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would like today two points to Wikipedia; 1. Wikipedia is not a cheap news OR a medium of publicity stunt; Wikipedia is a dignity. 2. She is not a notable person, she is even not a knowing face and she is far away from activism. Ashwinikrk (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ashwinikrk: That only is your opinion. This is indeed activism for me. BBC writing about her does not qualify as cheap news, at least for me. Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 17:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MBlaze Lightning: This is not WP:BLP1E. Check this news. This clearly proves that she is not just notable for the Indo-Pak video but also for her stand against ABVP. --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 16:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As far as I know, she recently came to limelight after she publicly spoke out against ABVP - and this led to her video resurfacing once again. It has led to controversy, but we don't know much about her other than that. King Cobra (talk) 11:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@6033CloudyRainbowTrail: Well her coverage in the news has already made her an activist. She is quite notable as far as i think. --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 16:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, because though I treat people like this with some scepticism (i.e. notable for doing things on social media) she has undoubtedly received significant coverage since last year, not just in the last few days. I'm wondering whether some of the vehement 'delete' votes above are based on disliking her politics? Sionk (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sionk: I don't think there's any political motivated deletion vote here. Being a Pakistani, I very much support this girl and her cause and of course would like to see a Wikipedia entry on her, but being an impartial Wikipedian, I nominated her bio for deletion because at the same time it's important to conform with Wikipedia policies. As long as she falls under WP:BLP1E, I don't think Wikipedia need a bio on her. --Saqib (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough Sionk (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib: If you look at the current news about her, it becomes clear that she does not fall under WP:BLP1E. She has become notable for at least two incidents. --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 02:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib and GSS-1987: and others: have a look at this news in The Hindu. This does not even mention about her previous video but talks about the current issue, the Save DU campaign started by her.--Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 08:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I leave it on the closing admin to decide whether to keep or delete this bio. Have we decide to go with keeping it, please don't forget to add the references you provided in this VfD to avoid the bio getting flagged again. --Saqib (talk) 09:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. I was reading the Indian Express and an article today is especially devoted to challenging her ideas, so I needed to come here to look her up. The article needs a lot of improvement but it's clear that there are sources in the mainstream media. Alternatively, merge with a redirect, but where? Itsmejudith (talk) 06:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete--Wikipedia is not a news-site.And a case of WP:BLP1E---putting out a viral video;trolled by some notable people and persons of prominence choosing sides-- hardly makes one notable.In the last year or so, India has seen a rise in student and intellectual activism.And with the accompanying hot-headedness of the political leaders and the very controversial nature of the topic under discussion--- these frequently snowballs into the national headlines--albeit temporally.But a fortnight or so after, these people magically vanish from any WP:RS coverage.And yeah, I don't buy, she was notable prior to the video surfaced out.As to some of the opposes, I fail to see any policy-based argument countering the issues raised specifically by the nom and GSS-1987.Winged Blades Godric 14:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Winged Blades of Godric: I have defended so many times that this article is not WP:BLP1E and the person is notable for more than one event. Defending "But a fortnight or so after", here are certain news reporting from 2016; one from July 2016, a popular website in May 2016, another news from May 2016 and then there has been coverage in tons of newspapers in February and March 2017.--Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 00:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually with some other article heading it may be a subject for q:wikiquote sister project ? , cause all it is about quips, Just I read a quip "This comment is not written by me, its written by my key board" :) [1]
Mahitgar (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.misalpav.com/comment/923588#comment-923588
  • Policy vs Hasten - Article has improved in compare of it was in early stage. But still bypassing many Wikipedia Policy as WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ASSERT, WP:RS. Wikipedia is not for making someone notable. If she is really becoming notable and doing acts , we should wait for some time. As I know she separate herself from the movement and clearly speak that she has nothing to do with all this now.[1] For now we should keep wikipedia policies in mind. Rest of for the closing administrator. सुमित सिंह (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I am generally sympathetic to the BLP1E argument, this has been refuted by the presence of substantive sources from before the "single event" in question. Furthermore, there is such a thing as carrying an argument too far; and I am seeing approximately 2 MILLION news results for her name: even if you discount a large fraction of these as coming from other folks with the same name (I don't know how common a name this is), this leaves a huge volume of coverage. Furthermore, there are going to be at least as many news items in vernacular sources that we are missing here. So, keep. Vanamonde (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a good case of WP:BIO1E. A review of the sources shows that the coverage is related to one event. Note that whether a person is known for one event is generally determined by whether significant coverage may focus on a single event involving that person.. In this case, it is abundantly clear that the significant coverage is focused on the event. (The coverage prior to this news spike is minimal. In addition, some of prior coverage is thebetterindia.com and newscrunch.in which are not reliable sources for the purpose of notability). Our WP:BIO1E requirements exist precisely so that we don't create WP:PSEUDO biographies on people. This unfortunately is one of the cases. I also agree with the explanation by User:Winged Blades of Godric, so it's a delete for me. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ www.news30.in/news-now-till/gurmehr-kaur-separate-herself-from-campaign
@Lemongirl942: Even if you check current coverage only, it focuses on two different events. But Indian Express], a reliable source has also written about her in 2016. --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 06:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look and it seems there was at max 1 or 2 articles, both of which were human interested stories about the video. Every other coverage seems to be related to the current controversy. What we are trying to determine is does significant coverage exist only in the case of one event. In this case, yes. The 2 articles previously are not significant coverage. I looked through quite a lot of sources and all of this is related to a controversy about political clashes in University of Delhi. I would support an article about 2017 University of Delhi controversy and the content should ideally go there. However, I cannot support a BLP here as it is the event which is notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep - I have already added my comment earlier in the thread, but the article has really improved over the past few days.. So it should be definitely not deleted. Yohannvt (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have struck the above comment as the user has already commented Keep above. Now double keep comment after a few comments is not allowed. --Marvellous Spider-Man 13:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The comment still stands, only the bolded part is invalid - don't be a jerk. I have fixed the striking. 103.6.159.76 (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 21:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another possible vantage point we should consider that some of deletion votes submitted in the earlier listing may or may not be due to the dislike of the political stand took by the subject and vice-versa. Thus endangering the NPOV, as pointed by User:Sionk at 20:49 on 4 March 2017 (UTC). Again, subject of the article has been significantly covered independently and personally by various reputed independent journalism houses. Article seems to look good minus the primary you tube links provided which i have removed in my contribution. There also no doubt should remain regarding merger as events and incidents do not take place into being until people related to it make it happen thus stand a crystal clear notability to have an article in main space. Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Also, articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source. Thank you. Pragmocialist (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I changed 'Keep' to 'Comment' because you have already 'voted' earlier. Sionk (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. I haven't looked at the sources, and have no opinion on her political position. But, the article itself makes it clear that she is only known for one event. Being known for one event only passes WP:GNG if the event itself is exceptional. This one is not. Narky Blert (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nejc Seretinek

Nejc Seretinek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I originally had this up as a blp-prod, since it was uncited at the time. However that no longer applies, however, this skier does not appear to meet WP:GNG, and I am not sure simply competing in the 3rd tier of ski-jumping, or his gold medal at an Olympic festival makes him notable. Onel5969 TT me 21:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yes, there were a lot of SPA-!voters in this AFD, but even assuming all the SPA !voters are one person, their point is valid. Relying on the sources added by GSS-1987 and other sources which were asserted to exist through invocations of GNG, the delete !votes, all of which came before the article was improved are invalid. The claims of socking might be overblown: the sources assert that the subject singer is popular, and two of the IPs geolocate to different service providers.-- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dilbagh singh

Dilbagh singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poor English, creator NOTHERE, lack of citations, disputed Notability, lack of facts. Tried to fix article, but couldn't. L3X1 (distant write) 20:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quack quack. L3X1 (distant write) 21:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More quackery. I will accuse you of being a sock, as voting in this AfD is the first thing you have ever done. Keep these lies up and I'll run and get SEMI. L3X1 (distant write) 23:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Mr./Miss L3X1, I'm not a sock, I gave my vote on the basis of the sources given in the article. I had an account previously on Wikipedia but forgot its password and since I didn't use my email id in the first place, I couldn't retrive the account. So, let's not go around accusing people for nothing. I would request you to go through the article once again and decide for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinayaksingh101 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 01:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Jackson (author)

Luke Jackson (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails WP:N because there isn't enough evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The only one I can find is a BBC Two documentary about his family, but I don't think that is enough. Another problems is that many of the statements made in this article are not cited. SThompson (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. as G4 by RHaworth (non-admin closure) GSS (talk|c|em) 17:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mahdi satri

AfDs for this article:
Mahdi satri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I checked on the sources and two of them are not supported by the sources or passing mentions. Only two sources are not significant enough. Fails GNG and BIO. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 20:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 20:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand "two of them are not supported by the sources". Two of what?
How many sources does it require? Have you tried looking for more? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per GNG, it requires significant coverage, probably more than two sources. Yes, but caught empty handed for source hunting. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 21:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but, it had four sources when you nominated it, two of which are entirely about him, and the other two have several paragraphs about him. There are further sources available.86.20.193.222 (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cory Booker. Kurykh (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions of Cory Booker

Political positions of Cory Booker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Content fork from Cory Booker. Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ravichandran C

Ravichandran C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No real independent evidence of notability. Google search turns up a considerable amount of self-promotion, which is not Wikipedia notability. The references are not independent. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Only one person wanted to keep; the remainder felt there were insufficient independent sources to sustain an article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin E. Park

Benjamin E. Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Assistant professor with h-index of 3 fails WP:PROF. PRODs denied. Abductive (reasoning) 04:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Even with the misreading that any potential bio subject must "pass wp:PROF", Park indeed would pass such a hurdle. I reprint the notability guideline at wp:PROF below:

    Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. Before applying these criteria, see the General notes and Specific criteria notes sections, which follow.
    1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
    2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
    3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE).
    4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
    5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).
    6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
    7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
    8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.
    9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.

    To reiterate the above, Park would need pass but one criterion above nonetheless passes for _ i. _ prolific scholarship published at leading publishers in his field; _ ii. _ editing at the only Mormon Studies review journal, Mormon Studies Review; at the oldest Mormon studies journal, Dialogue; and chairing a symposium of the Mormon History Association; _ iii. _ for being awarded the J. Talmage Jones Award of Excellence of the Morm. Hist. Assoc.; _ iv. _ for advocating for a certain understanding of a type of Mormon studies and to be known for this. link--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Park received recognition from the Mormon History Association for a paper written by a graduate student when a graduate student, but this is not the stuff that academic notability is made of. It is not clear to me he has yet published any books, which for historians is generally considered an important step. Park may one day be among the experts in Mormon history/theology, but right now he is just an emerging scholar, and has not yet reached the level of notability for an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He has published book chapters, reviews, etc., to date; see here.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just publishing stuff does not contribute to notability. It has to be cited by others, which in this case it isn't. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Funny you so argue 'cos the _ i.st _ criterion @ wp:AUTH is to be promiscuously cited by peers. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=20&q=%22Benjamin+E.+Park%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject isn't notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we almost always delete untenured assistant professors. Bearian (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No need to delete article about author simply because he is a non-tenured instructor at a college; alas, even an independent scholar may be notable, per the guidelines. In Park's case he is a well-known author within his discipline, which indeed is a notable one (lest WP subtly discriminates for ideological reasons, a no-go per wp:BIAS. (For relative population of Mormons vis-a-vis Jews--the latter group known for its study remaining somewhat ghettoized from the rest of the academy as recently as the early 20th century--see Harold Bloom link): "[...J]ews form less of a tenth of one percent of the world's population. That is about the proportion of the Mormons..."; Pew Research Center (link): "Mormons make up 1.7% of the American adult population, a proportion that is comparable in size to the U.S. Jewish population.")

    Park is a renowned author of scholarship within his discipline with plenty of reviews and sourcing otherwise, per wp:BIO, wp:AUTHOR (see Talk:Benjamin_E._Park#Sourcing) and the plain text at wp:PROF says it is but an alternate path designed for, say, a renowned chair in some field of study to merit a WP biography despite a lack of much sourcing about such an individual. See the summary at the bottom PROF's lede: "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the General Notability Guideline. It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines. Conversely, if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her failure to meet either the General Notability Guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant." --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak Keep I have been convinced that his scholarship is at a level that makes the article worth keeping. For what it is worth, a lot of Park's contributions, especially those that are listed as forthcoming in the source provided by Hodgdon's secret garden are not related to Mormon history at all per se, but to early 19th-century American religious/intelectual history.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Generally one has to be an editor-in-chief of an academic journal for it to confer notability. Thus J. Spencer Fluhman the editor-in-chief of the Mormon Studies Review is notable. To give another example Jack Welch the editor-in-chief of BYU Studies Quaterly passes notability for that, although he also holds a named professorship at BYU and probably could pass just on an assesment of his scholarship alone. Or say Marie Cornwall is notable for being the editor of the journal of sociology and religion, although an administrator still unilaterally deleted the article on her at one point. Generally heading a roundtable of an academic journal, or being on the editing staff other than the editor-in-chief is not considered to show one is a notable academic. This does make it harder to show people are notable in emerging fields. However I think much of the reaction to this article is driven by the fact it does not give a good sense of the works Park has produced. The fact that his book chapter on Benjamin Franklin is in a book co-edited by Paul Kerry, a person who pushed to get the article on him removed from Wikipedia, may not bode well for this article. A listing of his major scholarly works in the article would probably boost confidence that he might have made a scholarly impact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If I read the google scholar citation list right, his most cited work has been cited 11 times. However with so much work in history appearing in books, this may not cover his work very well. Still, I have to admit it seems on the low side.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
cmt - Only eleven times? ... Would WP be improved by a filled-out bio of Park? Unequivocally yes, owing to Park's so often being mentioned in print, the basis and definition of being "of note" and likewise of WP article creation under wp:BIO. (See "The Mormon Moment" in the WaPo, google results eg for "'benjamin e park' & (for example) 'site:washingtonpost.com' here, google search 'news' results for "'ben park' & 'mormon'" here, "'benjamin park' & 'site:sltrib.com' here; "'ben park' & 'site:sltrib.com' here, and "'Benjamin e park' & 'site:sltrib.com' here, etc.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hodgdon's secret garden: academics whose articles are kept under #C1 usually have multiple works with hundreds or thousands of citations each. Here we have one work with 11 citations. And most of the 11 appear to be either undergraduate theses or self-citations; only three of them are listed in Google scholar as being journal papers by other authors. For evidence that an academic work is making a significant impact, that is indeed a very small number. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
reply - David Eppstein, Quote me ONE LINE within wp:TOOSOON that says Park isn't notable. To quote from it:

WP:BASIC acts to remind editors of the caveats at the general notability guideline, in its restating that an individual is presumed to be notable "if they have been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject", and expands that "if depth-of-coverage is not substantial, then multiple less-than-substantial independent sources may be needed to prove notability". It re-states that coverage "must be more than trivial and must be reliable".

This guideline says an actor <sighs> must garner sufficient reliable secondary source mentions. Period. And, in the present case, Park already has these! Since WP's guidelines is its "Supreme Court," the SOLE WAY for a !vote to carry weight is for it to abide by these guidelines meanings. The off-kilter, credentialist criteria your contention stands on doesn't matter per the guidelines and WP's guidelines would need change before such contentions as yours can hold sway. Park, a scholarly reviewer of others scholarship within Mormon studies, akin to a critic, has had his knowledge and opinions quite often related to general readership audiences by journalists as well as their being debated in various venues by his peers. Oi! Even wp:JOURNALIST redirects to wp:AUTH. Is Peggy Stack, bar none the premiere secular reporter on the Mormon beat, not notable because she has only published journalism and not a book?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
rply - It's here:
"Dr. Park’s “The Book of Mormon and Early America’s Political and Intellectual Tradition” [Edited: pdf link here - Hodgdn] justly praises the books as important and worthwhile. He’s right, in my judgment, on both counts. Professor Park, who teaches history at the University of Missouri, is also an associate editor of the Maxwell Institute’s massively revamped Mormon Studies Review (the successor to, or replacement of, the FARMS Review, which I edited from 1988 through June 2012). ..." -- Daniel C. Peterson Link
"... A particular focus of discussion has been an essay by Benjamin E. Park, “The Book of Mormon and Early America’s Political and Intellectual Tradition,” which reviews two books relating the Book of Mormon to American history. The online discussion has often been exasperatingly hard to follow (jumping back and forth from various blogs to various facebook pages, etc.), and sometimes just plain vexing, dispiriting, even unseemly as the ratio of light to heat has shrunk. ... Terryl Givens and David Holland, who have defended Park’s goals, though not necessarily his phrasing, agree (unlike some voices at the new Maxwell Institute) that “Mormon Apologetics” is a useful and intellectually respectable enterprise." -- Ralph C. Hancock Link

"I suppose I should be happy that no one has undertaken in any substantial way to dispute my reading of Benjamin Park’s review of worthy books by David Holland and Eran Shalev [Ed.: (Results for WP mentions of Shalev are here.) in the recent Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, or my analysis of the significance of this review in relation to interventions by David Holland and by Terryl Givens, and to an attempt at self-clarification by Mr. Park himself. I should be satisfied, no doubt, that the essence of my argument has not only withstood criticism, but in fact that it seems to have been judged to invulnerable by any who might have been inclined to gainsay it. So color me satisfied… up to a point. What is disappointing (though I have no right to be surprised by it), is how the arguments concerning “apologetics” as allegedly opposed to “Mormon Studies” (and vice versa) go on just as before, sometimes after the slightest nods in the direction of my article (for or against it). ..." - Ralph C. Hancock Link
Link

  • Delete not yet a notable academic. Uhooep (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Just a young academic who deems to have published nothing so far. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • cmt - Park's pair of books in the works (which are not quote done, apparently, with their peer review, etc., prior to publication?) are not concerning Mormon studies but pertain to some more general field of American history. What's the worst that could happen? His books end up so sub-par as to be un-publishable by an academic press and WP ends up with a blp of a crank nevertheless widely quoted in the media? Donald Trump-like, some worry some heathen might slip through WP's gate? wp:PROF clearly not applying, What guideline or guidelines are you arguing from? Wp:Ignore all rules?

    As it is, Wp:BIO clearly indicates Park is notable; indeed Park would be considered notable were he solely published through his blogging (see wp:WEB), owing to verifiable, many of them main stream media quotes of his commentary within one of his main to0-date sub-discipline of Mormon studies as well as to the heated opinions which go back and forth among Mormon studies scholars and other Latter-day Saint opinion makers with regard to Park's ideas at verifiable self-published blogs (see wp:BLOGS). If Park cannot be seen as a notable commentator within Mormon studies, How could anyone? Certainly not even a media darling such as John Dehlin, known through his social activistism accomplished via his independent scholarship and blogging. The present discussion's anomalousness with WP's foundational principles provides a case history concerning the strengths and weaknesses of Wikipedia and its crowd sourcing. What else, if not creeping credentialism, should lead otherwise competent contributors to make the non-arguements, "Geez this guy innt no full professor. He ain't writ no book."

To quote Wikipedia's "Criticism of Wikipedia#Notability of article topics": "Nicholson Baker considers the notability standards arbitrary and essentially unsolvable: 'There are quires, reams, bales of controversy over what constitutes notability in Wikipedia: nobody will ever sort it out.' Criticizing the "deletionists", Baker then writes: 'Still, a lot of good work—verifiable, informative, brain-leapingly strange—is being cast out of this paperless, infinitely expandable accordion folder by people who have a narrow, almost grade-schoolish notion of what sort of curiosity an on-line encyclopedia will be able to satisfy in the years to come.'"--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think if Park is found notable, it will be not as an academic per se, but as a public intelectual, someone who publishes his intelectual work in public forums such as blogs, who writes articles for the general press, who writes articles for the Washington Post combining his academic expertise with a willingness to comment on current events (at times in ways that leave him seeming uninformed but more just rash when he attacks organizations for not making a statement on an issue that they then make a statement on shortly later). The sourcing for this will have to go through and meet some level of general notability guidelines. I am not sure people have even begun to tease out that issue well. We need sources by others that show following what Park says to pass that threshold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, John Pack Lambert. There are a few references to Park in books (per "'Benjamin E. Park' & 'Mormon'" at Google Books, including:
  1. Non-Mormon Mormon studies luminary John G. Turner references Park's "'Build, Therefore, Your Own World': Ralph Waldo Emerson, Joseph Smith, and American Antebellum Thought," in Turner's 2016 book "The Mormon Jesus," Harvard Univ. Press, link
  2. Prominent Mormon speculative lay theologian Terryl Givens gives Park thanks in Given's seminal 'Wrestling the Angel' (Oxford University Press) and cites Park: "...see Benjamin E. Park, “Reasonings Sufficient': Joseph Smith, Thomas Dick, and the Context(s) of Early Mormonism'"here.
  3. Givens and Matthew Grow cite Park's "Parley Pratt's Autobiography as Personal Restoration and Redemption" in Parley P. Pratt: The Apostle Paul of Mormonism, Oxford Univ. Press
    [...Main stream media mentions of Park's opinions--as opposed to the substantial number of general audience articles and essays published by Park--include]:
  4. "[Harold] Bloom holds up as the legacy of Joseph Smith 'betrayed' by modern Mormonism is a fantasy glimpse of the moment of the religion’s inception. Mormon historian Ben Park...." Joanna Brooks of Religious Dispatches
  5. "'To Whom Shall We Go: From Apologetics to Mormon Studies: The Case of Benjamin Park — with Reference to Dan Peterson, David Holland, and Terryl Givens'," (essay's title) by Ralph Hancock at Patheos
  6. Hancock's follow-up essay there.
  7. There is a lot of back and forth on this topic, too. E.g., see Patheos piece here
  8. " ...such interdenominational alliances, but according to Benjamin Park..." New Humanist, United Kingdom
  9. "Some have aimed their reprimands at the choir for accepting the invitation. Benjamin Park, a history professor at Sam Houston State University and an associate editor for an academic journal called the Mormon Studies Review, wrote a post on his personal blog shortly after the choir’s announcement. 'I am disappointed[... ... ...] To my friends who have been the direct targets of Trump’s attacks: even though the Mormon Tabernacle Choir is a missionary arm for the LDS Church, I hope you know that their appearance at Trump’s inauguration does not reflect my values or interests[...]'" Newsweek
  10. "As Mormon historian Benjamin Park explained to me, 'Mormonism’s attachment to the Republican Party has largely been centered on the conservative values of the religious right.'" Slate
  11. "...Park, a historian of American religion and a Latter-day Saint, offered an apology..." Slate
  12. "In a commentary published in The Washington Post, Sam Houston State University assistant history professor Benjamin E. Park wrote about the church's history of speaking about against religious tyranny." Daily Herald
  13. "Walker was a 'watershed in the LDS Church's historical conscience,' wrote Benjamin E. Park" Peggy Stack in the SLTrib
  14. Stack reviews Terryl and Fiona Givens's The God Who Weeps, quoting Park here
  15. "In a blog post, Benjamin Park, an assistant history professor at Sam Houston State University in Texas, tallied a baker's dozen of 'surprising facts' he gleaned from Prince's book...." SLTrib's Peggy Stack
  16. "...some LDS researchers are celebrating the new direction. ... 'By following the example of the LDS Church History Library in Salt Lake City, which engages with broader academic disciplines and communities, the Maxwell Institute will provide a much better service for the average member as well as the academic world' [said Park]" "Shake-up hits BYU's Mormon studies institute," by Peggy Fletcher Stack, The Salt Lake Tribune
  17. "Park said Smith’s vision was for a 'new civilisation destined to expand as God’s people multiplied. Gathering and city building were not incidental parts of sanctification, but the goal.'" The National of Scotland
  18. "...compact settlements that would go on to influence the planning of hundreds of American towns. 'This farm boy ... dreamed to build a metropolis that rivalled the large seaport cities he had only heard about,' writes the academic Benjamin Park, in a 2013 paper. In the 1830s, Smith laid out a detailed plan called the 'plat of Zion'." The Guardian
  19. "Algunas personas piensan que las persecuciones tenían que ver exclusivamente con la práctica de la poligamia entre los miembros de la religión. Pero el historiador Benjamin Park explica que eso no es así. 'La poligamia se convirtió en una controversia nacional recién en 1852', cuando la iglesia anunció públicamente su práctica durante una conferencia en Salt Lake City, Utah. 'Antes fue practicada en secreto por un número limitado de miembros. Muy poca gente lo sabía', según Park." Per Google Translate: "Some people think that the persecutions had to do exclusively with the practice of polygamy among the members of the religion. But historian Benjamin Park explains that this is not so. 'Polygamy became a national controversy only in 1852,' when the church publicly announced its practice during a conference in Salt Lake City, Utah. 'It was once practiced in secret by a limited number of members. Very few people knew,' according to Park" Univision
  20. "'It teaches the lay reader that [Mormon] facts, quotes and issues aren’t set in stone, nor are they easily decipherable,' Park writes in an email." The (San Jose) Mercury News
Daily (Provo, Utah) Herald
  1. (...Plus, no doubt, others.)
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
park's essays--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please redact your last sentence per WP:BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
He's an American, so maybe he doesn't know, or maybe he expects readers of his cv to be other Americans who wouldn't know. That said, I can find no mention of his name anywhere at cam.ac.uk. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm agnostic as to keeping or deleting the article, but I did find a catalog record for his dissertation: http://ulmss-newton.lib.cam.ac.uk/vwebv/holdingsInfo?bibId=40518 Katya (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
cmt - <shakes head in bewilderment> Strange times, these (what with the nativist, etc., tensions worldwide... ;~) With regard Narky Blert's "I object to that sort of trickery" / David Eppstein's "Maybe he doesn't know": This link, to the graduate program at Cambridge toward the MPhil in Political Thought and Intellectual History, which Dr. Park said he earned in 2011 (and note that an "Ox-bridge" MPhil or a MSc-by-research are comparable in themselves to Doctors of Philosophy degrees in the U.S.), mentions only "The University of Cambridge"; ditto for this one, to its program toward a PhD in History, which he said he earned in 2014. Park recieved a 2013 award in his subdiscipline for best graduate paper for "Early Mormonism and the Paradoxes of Democratic Religiosity in Jacksonian America," which, according to a newspaper report, was "written[...]at the University of Cambridge."

Are such !votes in WP deletion discussions as are based on misreadings of the guidelines or else on conspiratorial intimations counted as legitimate? no they are not(!)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deena Martin

AfDs for this article:
Deena Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable actor. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still going to have to say delete—not speedy though, as we don't know what the original article (from six years ago) looks like. But she is apparently only known for a total of five very small film roles and television guest spots. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the requirement is "multiple". If it was just two, the wording would be "at least two". Multiple needs to have 3. I can see giving with just 2 if the person is just starting their career and it is reasonable to assume that the 2 roles will be followed by a 3rd, but with one of these roles back in 1996 this is just not a reasonable assumption. 2 roles is not enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merriam Webster's #1 definition of multiple is "consisting of, including, or involving more than one". Later definitions do mention "several" (more than two) or "many", as do less significant dictionaries, e.g. [14]. I believe multiple in the context of the definition is two or more. Several would mean more than two. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  17:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe Simon

Gabe Simon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable outside of the band. One NYT reference that is in relation to the band. I cannot find any reference to a solo album. All the sources point to Kopecky and do not indicate a notable career outside of the band. Redirect. Karst (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

St Clair Leacock

St Clair Leacock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

lack of notability, no first name, nothing else is known about him rather than his career in a few elections ≠ notability. Find sources pulls up a grand total of 4 articles L3X1 (distant write) 16:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NPOLL3X1 (distant write) 17:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – significant politician. A quick search of the archives of the national newspaper The Vincentian shows a number of articles that name him in their headline. SVG Hansard shows him to be an active member of parliament (for example, this copy refers to him 47 times). The AfD case put forward by L3X1 is factually incorrect: his first name is St Clair; there are plenty of facts known about him (for example, this source makes it clear that he is a Justice of the Peace, a main contributor to the development of the St. Vincent Coast Guard Service, President of the St. Vincent and the Grenadines Football Association and Commandant of the Cadet Force and Auxiliary Police Force); and as for the "grand total of 4 articles", I find that an internet search gives many documents, some current news items, and interviews and public speeches on YouTube, including a speech featured on national television news. It seems to me that he satisfies the WP:GNG ("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.") and that this AfD should be rejected. No doubt the article needs expanding and a few more references adding – this is no surprise for a new article – but in my view there are insufficient grounds for deletion. — Hebrides (talk) 07:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note – {{Authority control}} added to article, with VIAF, LCCN and GND. — Hebrides (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Studios (Hull)

Nova Studios (Hull) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promoy, non notable company L3X1 (distant write) 16:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

5.198.60.218 (talk) 09:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)I added the Nova entry - certainly hope it complies with Wikipedia's guidelines and would not wish to use the entry simply to advertise the business. However, we certainly are a business, but I would suggest that our work on Basil's Kirchin's life and story is culturally significant and that it validates our inclusion. Furthermore, the non-commercial work we produced for Hull's City of Culture bid has historical, social and cultural significance in Hull's story.5.198.60.218 (talk) 09:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley Angela Gilbert

Hayley Angela Gilbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one verifiable source (huffpost) and doesn't seem to meet the guidelines on notability... TJH2018talk 18:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I meant zero sources usable for notability purposes, which was the case at the time I commented (interviews having no notability value, not being independent). Now that you've refbombed the article, we have a new problem: certainly most of the new refs aren't independent, but maybe some of them are. However, I'm not going to plow through it all looking. Can you just tell is which of these are significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? EEng 16:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Reply to Bonadea's 10:21, 4 March 2017 post. Quote: "her one-time appearance in a notable TV show" - Hi, Bonadea. Well there's more than one show. She has acted in Crime Team, Episode: The Cut Throat Killer / Bournemouth Ladykiller, where she played the part of Constance. There's also Dream Team, Episode: Easy Come Easy Go. She played the part of Sally. She played the part of Rachel in Lynda La Plante's Trial & Retribution Part 1.. So that's 3. She played a journalist in Bad Girls. So that's 4. She also had parts in Mile High, Episode: #1.2, and Holby City. That makes 6.
Quote: - "namely her appearance in She Wants Me, which I can't find any sourcing for at all)" - As for She Wants Me, there are 2 refs here that prove she was in the film. They are at Aveleyman, and The Huffington Post - here. There's probably more. Anyway, I'm more than satisfied that she is notable. Karl Twist (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - this makes it very clear that this talented actor is not yet notable enough per Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Many minor parts in notable productions don't "count", nor do major parts in nonnotable productions. WP:NACTOR is obviously not yet met, and when she does meet the criteria, somebody who is not connected to her or her marketing team will create an article about her. --bonadea contributions talk 23:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Bonadea's 23:11, 4 March 2017 post. She has had 3 roles in notable series that are significant. Also a significant role in a feature film. Right now she is getting increasing coverage for her role in Sonic Box. Also here at Huffington Post - here. and many online magazines are picking up on her. Notable! 10:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment She has acted in a number of films and televisions in significant roles and also hosts couple of Televisions shows. clearly passes WP:NACTOR Abrahamherews (talk) 07:37,
Which shows or films are you suggesting that meet the criteria of being notable, and which roles of her's are major roles in those notable shows and films? Because I can't find any that match those two points. Valeince (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

8 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Since this looked like it might barely pass the notability guidelines, I fixed the duplicate citations and took a quick look at each of the current sources. Here's what I've got on if each one works for keeping the article:
  • Huffington Post – Yes No due to author. See comment thread below.
  • Celeb Fans – Maybe (Reliable Source?)
  • Showbizwatch.com – No (I don’t think it’s a valid RS as a film credit)
  • AMB Magazine.com – Maybe (Reliable Source?)
  • Nora Gouma Magazine – Maybe (Reliable Source?)
  • Flappers Comedy Club – No (Award is not notable, probably the same with the comedy club)
  • IMDB – IMDB is a disputable as a RS, but this is as close to valid as you can get for IMDB
  • Horror Society and Dread Central – No (I don’t think it’s a valid RS as a film credit)
  • Aveleyman, Cinemagia.ro, Filmtips – Maybe as a film credit
  • PR.Com – Probably not an independent source
  • Spreaker Inc., Girls Mag, Daily Style Entertainment - Yes (Reliable Sources?)
  • Wn.com – No (Not an independent source as it was written by Hayley)
  • IMDB – See previous IMDB entry.
If the ones I flagged as maybe reliable are actually reliable sources, then I think this is a weak keep that needs some work but is otherwise salvageable. I'll let more experienced Wikipedia minds determine that. If not, Delete for now as WP:TOOSOON. ZettaComposer (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to ZettaComposer's thoughtful commentary on each source. I would not classify the Huff Post piece as a source that counts towards notability, as it was written by an "Authority Marketing and Personal Branding expert at [marketing company] who helps corporations, business professionals, actors, music artists, and authors gain national media exposure." In addition, it's not actually part of Huffington Post's own journalistic content, but, per the infobox next to the interview, "hosted on the Huffington Post's Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and post freely to [the] site." Which is another way of saying that the interview was published in order to garner publicity for the subject, it is not a sign of her being in fact notable. I'm still firmly in the delete camp. --bonadea contributions talk 22:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally disagree with bonadea. The title of the article is "Exclusive Interview with Hayley Angela Gilbert: Comedian, Actress and Talk Show Host", and that's what it is, An article read by the Huffington Post readers! Karl Twist (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That is entirely beside the point. The question was "Is this a reliable source here" and my assessment was that it isn't, for the reasons given above - it is evidently part of a promotional effort. Nobody said it wasn't an interview, but then again, interviews are normally considered very weak evidence of notability. --bonadea contributions talk 10:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to Bonadea's 10:58, 20 March 2017 post. "That is entirely beside the point. The question was "Is this a reliable source here" and my assessment was that it isn't, for the reasons given above - it is evidently part of a promotional effort." - No! It doesn't matter if it was a promotional effort or not. The article (whatever it was) appeared in The Huffington Post which is a reliable and well used source in Wikipedia. Many articles are a form of promotion in one way or another. This was an in-depth interview by Akshat Thapa which was published in the Huffington Post! It wasn't written and published in some back-street magazine with a circulation of 2000. A valid and reliable reference source.
      What you also neglect to mention is that in the Crime Team episode The Cut Throat Killer/Bournemouth Ladykiller, she had the main role as Constance. [15] In Dream Team episode Easy Come Easy Go, she had the main role as Sally.[16] She also appeared in Yuksek's music video "Sunrise" as the leading female character.[17] She is featured in many online magazines too. Karl Twist (talk) 09:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The journalistic content of The Huffington Post is a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes, but the Contributor Platform, which has no editorial oversight, is not. Please see this discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Some other major reliable sources have similar arrangements, such as the CNN iReport, which is not accepted as a reliable source in Wikipedia even though the journalistic content in CNN meets WP:RS. --bonadea contributions talk 10:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I saw that but I also see many similar being fine for refs. As it appears in the Huff, more than acceptable. Also you still don't recognize her lead roles in notable television shows and other. Karl Twist (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great point, next time I'll make sure to pay closer attention to the author. I took another look at the Huffington Post article and the author's contributor page clearly shows that he is a PR guy that writes articles to increase exposure, so this would not work as a source to show notability. I amended my post above accordingly, and I'm leaning more towards delete as this is looking more like a WP:TOOSOON case. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, in spite of the unsupported claims by some of the above editors, and sourcing doesn't show how they meet WP:GNG. Of course the Huffpo article doesn't count. PR never counts. Onel5969 TT me 14:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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'm pretty sure that in a year's time this article will almost certainly exist. But at the moment the "Delete" voters have policy on their side as regarding NACTOR and the other relevant policies. If this genuinely was a notable actor, as the Delete voters point out, she would have far more than the very thin third party coverage that the article gives. Black Kite (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Madelaine Petsch

Madelaine Petsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR Domdeparis (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny I would have thought that this is the very epitome of WP:BLP1E which is why the criteria explicitly says multiple roles. I am nonplussed...Domdeparis (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you and Johnpacklambert do seem to have misunderstood something: a recurring role in a TV show is not an "event". Moreover, according to IMDb this is not her only screen role. WP:BLP1E simply does not apply. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True for the event part but NACTOR clearly says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." I don't think this means one role in multiple episodes of a single show. If what you are saying is how it should be understood then the notability guide should be changed to add that appearing in multiple episodes counts too. Domdeparis (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:BASIC trumps everything and she's got the coverage, from what I can see -- and from what Vejvančický has demonstrated. I don't see this Afd passing but we'll see! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It'll be interesting to see. Just out of curiosity do you know of any other similar AfDs for actors in series? Domdeparis (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not off the top of my head but you could peruse the discussions, ongoing and removed, at deletion sorting pages for actors as well as television, if you've really got the time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Shawn in Montreal. I didn't mean to be uncharitable, I was just thoughtless. Maybe it's just TOOSOON. Quis separabit? 23:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, that's fine. I'm still okay with my !vote and a bit emboldened that the other person currently in the keep camp is an admin, who's well versed in policy. But the upside is if it is deleted, we're not losing much anyway. And if she does have lasting notability it'll be recreated in time, anyway. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the case but even admin can make mistakes and sometimes have their articles prodded and/or deleted by other admin ;o) Domdeparis (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are of course right Domdeparis. AfD discussions usually profit from examining different points of view. I believe that this topic has potential to be developed into a decent article, with some creativity. Your point is that she appeared in only one notable TV show which is not enough to be included on Wikipedia. Let's wait what others think. To me, it's not a matter of life or death and I can live with any result. Many people opposed my opinions in the past. It's normal. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NACTOR - 13 episodes of one series is not "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, ..." I don't find the other coverage to be significant or in-depth. MB 03:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – WP:TOOSOON. This is pretty much the definition of an article that should have been created in Draftspace, and incubated for about a year, before even thinking of moving to mainspace. Also, as has been pointed out, is also a technical WP:NACTOR fail as only one significant role to date. Like I said – too soon... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Her current co-star role gets her past notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • How?! A short burst of coverage coinciding with the premiere of a new TV series does not demonstrate true notability, especially long-term notability... I appraise articles like this one with the following "thought exercise": if Riverdale is cancelled tomorrow and never airs another episode, and Petsch never gets another significant acting role during the next 3 years, would the current article still be notable in 2020? – The answer is a resounding "No!" That's why this is WP:TOOSOON – if Riverdale sees a second season, and Petsch is still generating significant coverage on her own in a year's time, then we can revisit this one in 2018 (despite it still being a technical WP:NACTOR fail even at that point...). But, as of March 2017, this one's a "delete". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a good exercise but the show was just renewed for a second season. Brojam (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which does nothing to improve her notability now, though it may contribute to her passing the threshold next year. Which further proves my original point – this should have been created in Draftspace and incubated for months to see if she gets enough coverage to pass WP:BASIC despite failing WP:NACTOR. Whether Riverdale is renewed or not, it is still WP:TOOSOON for this subject to get a standalone article... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete. If you don't think that the coverage is good enough for GNG then at the minimum this should be Redirected to Riverdale (2017 TV series) where she has a significant role, making her name a reasonable search term. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue is that this article should be deleted, and then a redirect can be created after its deletion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nope, it doesn't work like that. Deletion is not necessary to create a redirect. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • In this case, it does – deletion removes the current article's page history, which should not be preserved. Then a "fresh" redirect with an empty page history can be created after deletion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Deletion removes the current article's page history, which should be preserved. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hi @Duffbeerforme: just out of curiosity why is it essentiel in your eyes to keep the page history? To avoid having to rewrite the article again when she does finally meet the criteria ? If that's the case the article creator has the possibility to copy it into their sandbox or onto their hard drive. If there is a real problem and someone wishes to contest the deletion (which may not happen anyway) there is a Deletion review process that can allow the article to be temporarily undeleted so that non-admins can review the history. Domdeparis (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • You've touched on why histories should be kept. The real question that should be asked is why is IJBall so keen on deleting the history, and you the article, when there is a good alternative clearly available. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • To be perfectly honest I couldn't care less whether it is deleted and then recreated as a redirect or simply blanked and changed as a redirect. I nominated it because the subject does not meet the criteria WP:NACTOR as this is one show and not multiple shows (but that's debatable according to some editors). If I had thought that there would be no debate about the suitability of this article I would have boldly blanked it and created the redirect myself as per WP:ATD-R. I'm just trying to understand why you say it "should" be preserved. It would be useful to the admin that has to decide on the outcome of the discussion to have your views on the preference for this option rather than just stating that it exists. Merging and incubation are other options that exist do you have a view on those? (and my apologies for modifying your comment but it was not immediately clear and did not conform to the recommended format as per WP:AFDFORMAT but that's your choice I was just trying to be helpful) Domdeparis (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Since no one has given an actual reason to delete the history the history should not be deleted. On merging, doesn't seem to be anuthing really worth merging but if it was merged the history Must be preserved. On incubation, yep that's an option, once again preserving the history. On afdformat, I have not properly checked out the sources to form a properly developed stance on gng. As such I was merely commenting on the appropriate alternative and not making an actual !vote. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She seems to be getting significant coverage in press sources. She has also landed a major role in a current television series. Dimadick (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bishonen | talk 23:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tres Watson

AfDs for this article:
Tres Watson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Initiated by a sockmaster with multiple repeat edits by socks who are part of a nest of socks that appear to be paid advocacy editors (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brilbluterin). Claim of notability appears to be premised on the groups he is involved with. Page creator, a proven sockmaster, is not being notified. Risker (talk) 05:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep Independently reviewed and sources confirmed after community discussions. The article should be judged on its current accuracy and encyclopaedic value. --Fæ (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting interpretation of the last AFD, which closed as "no consensus"; all of the references were disputed at that time. (I don't dispute that close, it was appropriate to the discussion.) I came to this article because of an SPI. We're now up to at minimum 4 blocked socks (including one who was community banned independent of the current SPI). Neither of the organizations he's associated with have been deemed notable by editors of this encyclopedia, both of their articles were considered essentially advertising, and they're the basis on which notability is claimed for this article's subject. Risker (talk) 07:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My view has nothing to do with the last AFD, hence no mention of it in my viewpoint. If you must lobby this AFD after creating it, please stick to verifiable facts rather than what you think you see. --Fæ (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly does your !vote say? Reads meaningless to me. Independently reviewed by who? "confirmed" by who? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See the links at the top of the page. I'm happy to answer questions if they are in a collegiate tone. Thanks. --Fæ (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then please reread Duff's questions with a collegiate, AGF-ing tone in your mind and give them an answer, because so far no one seems to understand what you're saying. Thanks. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At the top of the page are links to the article history and the article talk page. Edits since the last AfD have made significant improvements to trimming out irrelevant sources and moving to a neutral point of view in the text, see diff. Sorry, found the last AfD highly adversarial and this just seems similarly aggressive. I've probably just forgotten what is normal for AfDs as I've grown used to what happens in the smaller Commons community. --Fæ (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, the article still has unsourced statements, statements that do not match the sources, and boastful statements with a first-party source. The cleaning is not complete - and the cleaner it is made, the more visible it is that there is not much there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The sources about Canvass for a Cause generally just mention him as a spokesman, and the group itself was deemed insufficient for an article in a prior AfD. The material about Gadget Guys is sourced either to a local weekly (and thus of limited impact), to a database, or to his alma mater (and thus connected.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Coverage is about Canvass, not him and outside the local/alma mater interest is focused on one single new event, the lawsuit. See last afd for an analysis of sourcing to see why it's not good enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable activist who has not recieved wide spread coverage in reliable 3rd party sources at a level to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; founder of two non-profit organizations, received some coverage on a national level, more coverage on a regional level, mentioning him by name, over a period of 8 5 years, by reliable 3rd party sources CBS, The San Diego Union-Tribune, San Diego Gay and Lesbian News, LGBT Weekly. Additional sources that may not be independent do not diminish those. The article still being worked on is no grounds for deletion, more to the contrary. Unsourced statements in an article are no grounds for deletion of the whole. The last RfD had no consensus, but a solid 5:2 majority to keep; none of the five editors who wanted to keep the article have a connection to the above mentioned sock puppetry, so I'm not sure why there even is a 2nd nomination, there appear to be no new arguments; to the contrary, the article has been improved since then. -- Seelefant (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The sources you listed are reliable but that's not enough to establish notability per WP:GNG. The sources also need to be independent of the subject and the coverage needs to be significant - "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention."
  • CBS - Article about Target lawsuit contains a media file interview of subject. Interviews are generally considered primary sources, regardless of where they are published.
  • The San Diego Union-Tribune. - Trivial mention of subject in article about Canvass for a Cause being sued by Target. It's interesting that the article in the local paper starts off stating "A small, largely unknown group of same-sex marriage activists from San Diego has been sued by one of the world’s biggest retailers ..."
  • San Diego Gay and Lesbian News - Article is about Canvass For A Cause - one line mention of subject
  • LGBT Weekly - Article is about The Gadget Guys Foundation. Article is primarily interviews with people associated with the foundation.
Unfortunately, none of these sources are sufficient to establish notability. CBS527Talk 02:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep There is enough RS about him as an individual, and the issues raised here seem to mirror the previous delete discussion with nothing new to warrant delete. Listed as the founder of two non-profits which have garnered coverage each individually, which is different than a passing mention as a spokesperson for an organization. He is listed in the IRS 990 of Canvass for a Cause as the principle, and looking at the Canvass for a Cause delete it was a speedy delete, without debate so that seems less deterministic than an actual debate.--AtreauAtreau (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not convinced by the argument that the article is only about his organisations, not himself. That's what he's done, that's why he's notable. Spicemix (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not nearly enough in-depth coverage about him to show that he meets WP:GNG. Most are simple mentions. Onel5969 TT me 01:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Independently reviewed and sources confirmed after community discussions. So no reason to trie to delet it again.FFA P-16 (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Founder of two notable organizations might imply notability ;founder oftwo non-notable organizations does not, and that's the case here. It's just possible that Canvass for a Cause might be notable, so an article could possibly be written on i (the previous article was rightfully deleted as highly promotional). The previous afd was not a keep, but a non-consensus, which indicates nothing about notability. DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also after relist, still for Keep( striking duplicate keep !vote. Onel5969 TT me 22:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)), Independently reviewed and sources confirmed after community discussions. So no reason to trie to delet it again.FFA P-16 (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Note to closer: This is the second !vote by this user - see above.[reply]

  • Delete - fails basic WP:GNG as subject has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Article has been "referenced" with sources that do not meet all 3 requirements. Two are interviews of the subject which, of course, are not independent, one he isn't mentioned in and rest are short mentions of the subject with nothing of substance. Notability is not inherited since notability requires verifiable evidence and is not conferred by association. G-searches, HighBeam and NYTimes are producing no helpful sources either. CBS527Talk 21:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG as subject has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", only mentions as spokesman of the non-notable organisations listed which do not have their own articles. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice towards further discussion on redirecting or merging, but the conclusion is definitely not delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000)

Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A faction in a board game and associated fiction. Article consists only of in-universe plot summary (WP:NOTPLOT), and is sourced only to non-independent primary sources (gamebooks, video games, etc.), failing WP:N.  Sandstein  17:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Warhammer 40,000 per nom. Reliable sources are virtually nonexistent, as once you remove the obvious product pages from searches, all that's left are fan sites, forum posts, and other unreliable sources. I was initially going to suggest redirecting to Imperium (Warhammer 40,000), but upon looking at that page, I realized that it had all the same problems as this one and then some, so that doesn't seem especially prudent. Redirecting to the main Warhammer 40K article makes the most sense at this point. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. All I got from scholarly sources is one sentence in a book (Katherine Larsen (15 March 2012). Fan Culture: Theory/Practice. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 119–. ISBN 978-1-4438-3862-7.). Perhaps someone can find some sources in geeky hobbist media that would be independent of GW. This is after all a major faction in a major franchise, I'd think it would have had some impact on culture, through I guess it has ben vastly overshadowed by Space Marines, etc. I mean, recently we (the few people who voted) decided that each Star Trek Enterprise ship variant is notable, for example. But unless someone can find such sources, well, it's fancruft that fails Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), indeed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with nominator. Unless it's covered in good sources from an out-of-universe perspective (and I don't have time to wade through the many pages of fansites etc to establish for sure that it isn't), then it doesn't really belong on Wikipedia. The Land (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Warhammer 40,000 per nom and above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Necrothesp and Jcelements below, or merge to Warhammer 40,000. BOZ (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant organisation in both a very longstanding and notable tabletop miniature game (one of the most notable tabletop miniature games ever, in fact) and a longstanding and notable roleplaying game, set in a world about which vast amounts have been written over the years. I think this one crosses the notability bar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep with a less bad 'find sources' template, you get The Mary Sue, PCGamesN (and there are dozens of other game reviews on this or other sites mentioning the Imperial Guard), Slate, Forbes, and The Escapist, for instance. That's just a smattering, and I'm not even very familiar with WH40K, but when a faction shows up in a corporate earnings discussion, even in passing, I would call that pretty high indication of real-world impact. Sad to see this has run for a whole week without any of this meager level of BEFORE work. Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for digging those up - but those sources don't really help very much, in my view. Yes, the Imperial Guard gets a mention in discussions of WH40k. Do those mentions add up to enough out-of-universe material to justify an independent article ? Probably not. Now, if there were a number of articles that specifically discussed the Imperial Guard as a subject rather than "here's a feminist critique of Warhammer and by the way Imperial Guard" or "Here's the latest amazing 40k game! Imperial Guard are in it" I would be saying "keep". The Land (talk) 08:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 01:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do the sources provided by Jclemens establish the requisite notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samajik network

Samajik network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company/website. No reliable sources cited or found through searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Gale, HighBeam, or Tito Dutta's custom Indian English Newspapers Search. Worldbruce (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First, Google returns 61 hits, none of them a reliable source, contradicting the puffery in the article about how this service is practically synonymous with "social network" throughout some portion of Asia, and demonstrating it to be drastically non-notable. Second, the most substantial source given in the article is exactly this puffery, about the popularity of this social network that the same article says hasn't gone live yet. Yeah, right. And, third, this article is purely promotional and, even if it were remotely notable, WP:TNT would apply. Largoplazo (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Yash talk stalk 05:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dyno-Rod

Dyno-Rod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I can tell, this company doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Mikeblas (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Orphan, pure promotion Bishonen | talk 11:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From The Box Office

From The Box Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company,and a clear case of WP:UPE if nothing else, fails WP:ORGCRITE: no significant coverage in secondary sources: WP:BEFORE gives such results as [26]. Much of the claim to notability is inherited (its owners, Ingrisso, have more mention in the article than the subject does). Sources are WP:PRIMARY ([27]) and lack WP:ORGDEPTH. So fails WP:GNG. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 15:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Article contains external references and citations, including winning an Award. It contains interviews with notable people, it was the first of its kind to offer a particular service and thus have a significance within the industry. I understand why Wikipedia should not be invaded with non-significant articles, but this website has, albeit small, significance within the industry and should be given a chance. Wikipedia is place to make information publicly available and I believe this censorship is not exactly in line with what this stands for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csilvestre (talk • contribs) 09:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 01:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a sample, cited to the company's own blog, while describing how great and notable the blog is:
  • From The Box Office Blog
From The Box Office's blog offers theatre-related content, including the latest show openings, show reviews, theatre guides and interviews with cast members and other theatre bloggers.[1] Most notably, From The Box Office interviewed Michael Macilwee, the T. Rex dancer who performed to A Chorus Line in a video that went viral.[2]

References

  1. ^ "FROM THE BOX OFFICE Blog". FROM THE BOX OFFICE Blog. Retrieved 2017-03-10.
  2. ^ niallrpalmer (2016-03-26). "Michael Macilwee: The man behind THAT dancing T-Rex". FROM THE BOX OFFICE Blog. Retrieved 2017-03-13.
The table that follows is also cited to the same blog. "Delete" is still my vote, as this is nothing but corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure). "Pepper" @ 01:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iris Fontbona

Iris Fontbona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
@Andrew D. -- With all due respect -- she is considered an heiress by Fortune, Forbes, etc., not an entrepreneur, according to the article's own text. And if she never grants interviews then how the heck are we supposed to know what she does, if anything? I suspect her stepchildren handle most of it, but whatever .... Quis separabit? 23:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'll grant you that the article, as it is written does not adequately confirm the subject's notability, however, she is clearly in charge of the family finances and her notabiity is not inherited, regardless of whether her fortune was. [28] "A pesar de que Andrónico Luksic Craig, su hijastro, lidera la totalidad de su holding, toda decisión necesita ser evaluada por Iris antes de ser confirmada"...her step-son heads the holding company, but Iris must confirm any decision before it can be put into play. The article goes on to say that while she doesn't manage the day to day activities of the businesses, she does manage the investments of their foundation which make running the businesses possible. Which is confirmed in this link [29] Many articles talk about her reluctance to appear in press and donations to help children: [30], [31], [32], [33] Sufficient to prove she meets GNG on her own. SusunW (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Richest person in Chile. Probably notable, despite being foreign & a woman. Was there something more that she should have done? --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable in own right as businesswoman and richest in country. PamD 18:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and a trout for the nominator. The individual clearly meets WP:GNG, and a simple Google news check shows numerous sources where she is referenced in the title by her own name. This includes in multiple in-depth pieces by publications from around the world. This alone means her notability is not inherited. --LauraHale (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yet again at AfD, WP:BEFORE applies. Clearly passes WP:GNG in her own right. As for the nominator deleting her article and replacing it with a redirect to her late spouse, that was essentially unilateral deletion without discussion. Edwardx (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify -- I did not want to AFD the article; I simply redirected it when it was a oneline stub and received an edit summary comment from another editor that I should consider AFD. Had the editor in question merely informed me that a full-fledged article on Fontbona was being compiled/created (perhaps a sandbox version) and would be ready within the day I would have proceeded differently.
Although let us not fool ourselves -- much of Fontbona's article is already present in the Andrónico Luksic Abaroa and Andrónico Luksic Craig articles, particularly the former, but I am not gonna quibble.
AFD WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR Quis separabit? 23:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven Rain

AfDs for this article:
Heaven Rain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable metal band, no sources. Evking22 (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 00:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. No independent RS and only bare listings on Encyclopedia Metallum (non-RS). The article creator's user name is the same as the band's founder and both the article and EM listing indicates only two full-length releases, neither of which are on " a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels". Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Doyle (ice hockey)

Chris Doyle (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per no participation herein other than from the nominator.) North America1000 20:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spuf don

Spuf don (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BAND and WP:BIO. Minor producer with single EP release. New EP release now, hence this article. scope_creep (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 00:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 01:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ulmus americana 'JFS-Prince II' = Colonial Spirit

Ulmus americana 'JFS-Prince II' = Colonial Spirit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable new cultivar. The prod was removed with reason " notability lies in the cultivar's allegedly proven resistance to Dutch elm disease, rare within the species" which shows a misunderstanding of what WP:NOTABILITY means on Wikipedia. Being rare, unusual, better, ... don't matter here, what matters is if the subject has gotten significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. What I can find are some pictures of a very young tree in an arboretum, listings in some cultivar databases, some links from the creators, and some questions on fora. But this very recent tree has n't been the subject of any news articles, books, independant journal articles, ... so for us it isn't (yet) notable. Fram (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Alright. This appears to be a single breed of tree available from two non-notable nurseries whose sources are...basically the nursery it came from. "Ulmus americana" is entirely too generic to be useful, as is "Colonial Spirit", and JFS-Prince II doesn't seem to lead to anything of more value than this passing mention. If this is the kind sourcing we have for the apparently huge amount of similar article then we may have a problem. TimothyJosephWood 16:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TATA Housing Serein

TATA Housing Serein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertising article to sell some non notable homes. scope_creep (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrre Bjørdal Sæther

Kyrre Bjørdal Sæther (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fail WP:BAND. Minor musician who played with somebody in 1997. Part in album, which is not mentioned on discogs, but is in Spotify with less than 900 plays, on soundcloud with less than 31 plays and Napster with a new album released last week. Simply not notable. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC) Keeping this page up will not only contribute to increasing diversity among coverage of lesser known musicians, but will also be of great help in giving a small city such as Molde more attention when it comes to cultural life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.252.68.6 (talk) 07:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. Glenn Richardson

C. Glenn Richardson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Major puff piece article, written by man himself, i.e. COI issue and SPA account holder. Can't see why he is notable. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarhad Ke Us Paar

Sarhad Ke Us Paar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This book is related to the AfDs for the author and to the AfD for his other book, which was opened by TheLongTone.

This has the same issues as the other articles - there just isn't any coverage out there that would be capable of establishing notability. The only source is a post on a website that allows user submitted content and a search for content didn't bring up anything that would show notability. Ultimately there just isn't anyone writing about this person other than the author and one or two bloggers. Given the nature of some of the posts made by these bloggers (one published a press release) I would wager that they were likely people that were hired to write about the author and/or are people he knows. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Azhar Sabri

AfDs for this article:
Azhar Sabri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came across this article via the AfD for one of his books, The Chronic Mansion. Normally I will recommend for something to get redirected if there's an author article, but a closer look at his page shows that there's a lack of notability here as well.

The sources currently on the page cannot show notability and are as follows:

  1. Goodreads. This is a link to the Goodreads page for one of his books. At most this could show that the book exists, which is not a sign of notability, however content can be freely added on Goodreads as long as you have librarian status - which isn't hard to get - so this couldn't even be used as a trivial source.
    In fact, the article's author has accidentally linked to a completely different book: 'The Other Side' by different authors. (The book 'The Chronic Mansion' does in fact appear in GoodReads, but as mentioned above, this doesn't prove much.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. MeriNews. This is a site that accepts user submitted content per their about page, making this a WP:SPS. Even if that weren't an issue that would make it something that couldn't be used to establish notability, the item itself is predominantly a book synopsis and a one line statement that the book will release.
    Also, the entry was posted by a user with the user name 'mrimam' - see Special:Contributions/mrimam for the user's contributions on Wikipedia. It was likely added by the author himself or by somebody writing on his behalf. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. India Opines Blogs. This is a blog source that allows people to submit their own content. It's the same content that's posted here at MeriNews by the same user that posted the other MeriNews item, so this is at best a press release even if we ignore that India Opines is a SPS.
    As above. Written by the same user, too. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PoemHunter. This is a site where people can post poems. It's not selective about what content it posts, meaning that anyone can sign up and post content and being on the site isn't something that would be seen as a huge honor per se. At most this could just back up that he has written poetry, which by itself doesn't give notability.
  5. Chicago Tribune. Now while the CT can give notability, a look at this page shows that it was something written by "Community Contributor mrsabri5", meaning that it was published in their community blog section. Anyone can contribute towards that, so this is not the same thing as if someone was covered by the Chicago Tribune itself. The user name also gives off the impression that this was Sabri writing about himself.
  6. Amazon. This is an Amazon listing, which cannot show notability. E-commerce sites are things that should not be posted to Wikipedia in general, since they're inherently promotional.
    As for #1, this doesn't prove anything more than that the book exists. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for him using the India WP's search engine and found very, very little other than user submitted content that cannot be used as a reliable source. This person just doesn't pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks like this was deleted previously. I don't think that anything has changed notability-wise since the last deletion but since he has put out a new book prior to the last AfD, I suppose that this should run a full week. Once this is deleted (since I doubt it has a chance of survival) I would recommend blacklisting this name since there have been so many attempts to create this. I also have to question if this is Laddanansari evading a block, given the author's obscurity and the fact that Laddanansari was blocked for sockpuppetry and repeatedly trying to put Sabri on Wikipedia - which seems to be the case with this editor, as they're making a lot of the same edits. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tara

Miss Tara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has four sources. One is the PR biography at a beauty pageant, so is not independent and does not establish notability. It is the only one that is primarily about the subject of the article. The second is a YouTube video uploaded by the subject, used as a source for the date of her birthday. This is not independent and does not establish notability. The other two are record reviews, which do not establish notability of the subject per WP:NOTINHERITED. The article was written in return for payment. In the end, this is someone who has made one album that appeared one above the bottom of a second-tier chart. I do not think this establishes notability, and the fact that the subject had ot pay for the article rather supports that. Guy (Help!) 14:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I was notified of this by Janweh64 so I will not !vote. I passed this through AFC because WP:MUSICBIO#2 says "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" and Billboard is specifically identified as an acceptable chart. I accept that I may have been wrong and that some Billboard charts are not acceptable. I am not familiar with the ins and outs of music charts, but I have seen no indication of this in any of the notability guidelines.
    My personal opinion is that the notability criteria is too low but artists who chart tend to pass AfD much more often than not and, as I understand it, that is the criteria used for allowing articles through AFC. Since passing a SNG allows but does not require an article the balance of sources and the acceptability of an article on this subject is something to be assessed here at AfD. Jbh Talk 04:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thanks to both JzG and Jbhunley for careful evaluation here. As far as I can see, this hinges on whether or not the Billboard Dance/Electronic Albums chart is the "national chart" for the purposes of WP:MUSICBIO. I really wouldn't know, but it looks as if it is not – the national charts appear to be the Billboard Hot 100 for singles and the Billboard 200 for albums. Is that right? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Justlettersandnumbers: Wikipedia:Record charts (the page linked in the notability criteria) does not limit the eligible charts to the main Billboard charts but in that case, to charts published by Billboard Magazine

    A chart is normally considered suitable for inclusion if it meets both of the following characteristics: [1] It is published by a recognized reliable source. This includes any IFPI affiliate, Billboard magazine, or any organization with the support of Nielsen SoundScan. Recognized national measurement firms, such as Crowley Broadcast Analysis for Brazil or Monitor Latino for Mexico, are legitimate sources of charts. [2] It covers sales or broadcast outlets from multiple sources.

    Personally I think it should be limited to the 100/200 charts but, much like some of the NSPORTS criteria, I think a ridiculously low bar was set 'back in the day' and we are now stuck with criteria which allow promo/perma-stubs.
    I certainly do not object to this article's deletion based on the paucity of sources and, on principle, that it is essentially a paid vehicle for using Wikipedia to increase this person's real world notability. That would have to hinge on a specific consensus here based on the guideline that passing the notability criteria allows but does not require an article on Wikipedia. Jbh Talk 15:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    MUSICBIO only indicates that a subject may be notable; meeting any criteria listed there does not imply the subject is notable, unlike satisfying GNG. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if the subject meets MUSICBIO#2, MUSICBIO only indicates that a subject may be notable. GNG has not been satisfied. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AWS Truepower

AfDs for this article:
AWS Truepower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOT apply here because (1) WP:NOT states that Wikipedia is not a business webhost, and this itself is a non-negotiable policy and, next, WP:CORPDEPTH states that "Unacceptable sources include: works carrying mere trivial coverage, brief statements, announcements, press releases, any material written or published by the company, anything by for the company or where the company talks about itself, wherever published", and itself fits the current sourcing given: 1, 2, 8, 10 and 11 is their own website which is resourced 6 times, 3 and 4 is a trade publication which is therefore unacceptable considering it's simply echoing whatever the company itself says, therefore not independent; 5 and 6 are simply local announcements, 7 is simply an FAQ (see here) and 9 is simply a republished announcement. Next, WP:GNG itself, not to mention, never being an actual policy, is itself stated "Subjects may be presumed (not guaranteed" if....", thus it's not interchangeable or replaceable to our established policies, considering advertising has always been enforced as unacceptable. Now, the new sources,the 1 Spanish source is also only a mere announcement, about one of the company plan as are the 4 that followed, The AlbanyBusinessReview is self-labeled as a "business trade publication" basically meaning it only serves the businesses and their PR, thus not independent, regardless of whatever information there is. As past reviews of this article showed, there's been no genuinely independent, significant or substantial coverage, such as what this search found (in there, the 1st page are all clearly labeled press releases or notices, the second page emphasizes it until it says "no further articles". Even examining the sources offered at the 1st AfD, were simply trade publications, something even WP:CORPDEPTH stated was unacceptable, and that's actually one of the simplest standards for any company article; worse, one of the comments actually stated "All of the sources in the article seem to be from the company, and it is rather promotional in tone, [here's a company quote]", itself enough for any deletion. Also, as our simplest standards and policies show, articles must be improved if found to actually be notable and past attempts at this have had no success, but considering there's never been no actual meaningful coverage about the company to at least suggest minimal improvements, there's nothing to suggest this company should continue misusing us as a business webhost; "Wikipedia is not a business webhost" is actually mentioned repeatedly in the policy WP:NOT. The history also shows several SPA accounts focusing in what the company published at its own website, thus we can safely presume WP:Paid was violated alone especially as some of the accounts actually stated they were an employee, it's worse when the company consistently showed contributions in the 7 years this article existed. SwisterTwister talk 01:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PROMO; the content is strictly advertorial. Separately the article has had plenty of chances for improvement after two AfDs, but this has not occurred. If this company was indeed notable (of which I'm not convinced), than an editor independent of the topic will likely create the page some time in the future. There's no rush to reach such a state, however. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article and sources do not establish establish notability per guidelines. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and basic WP:GNG as subject has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Current sources
1. Company web site
2. Company web site
3. All mentions of substance are quotes from company's CEO or Director of Solar Services
4. Trade publication - company doesn't seemed to be mentioned
5. All mentions of company contains information provided by company CEO
6. Trivial mention that company produced a map for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
7. Dead Link
8. PR announcement about company acquiring Windographer
9. Company product web site (Windographer)
10. Blog entry provided by company
11. Company web site
The further reading section contains PR info or trivial mentions.
G-searches and HighBeam provided more of same and NYTimes had no hits at all. CBS527Talk 02:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meets WP:GNG; enough coverage exists to meet WP:N. Some source examples are listed below. Note that the sources below are not press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have the same article hosted on various websites. Full disclosure: I closed the first AfD discussion as an uninvolved user, but this does not preclude me from participating in this new AfD discussion.
This company also meets WP:AUD in that it has received coverage outside of its local area, such as national coverage in Wired as well as coverage in Spain and Iowa. North America1000 20:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

– English-translated La Vanguardia article. Title: "The wind drives Meteosim"
– English-translated El País article. Title: Some physicists to predict the weather
– English-translated El Mundo article. Title: Simulate the atmosphere of Brazil to 20 years seen 'without treading the country'
– English-translated El Periódico de Catalunya article. Title: With the wind to the Maghreb

Article title searches

  • Comment and analysis - The Albany Business Review is in fact a press release profile because it's an indiscriminate local business story advertising its local business, something WP:CORPDEPTH states is unacceptable as is WP:NOT; the first sources are simply guide stories about the company's activities, also unconvincing for WP:CORPDEPTH. Even the paywall Tim's Union are simply trivial business stories about "plans" which, to quote WP:CORPDEPTH is unacceptable because anything where the company talks about itself, wherever published". Our simple standards themselves have never accepted primary influenced sources as these because Wikipedia has no place in servicing company needs. As a native Spanish speaker, I never needed a translation of the Spanish sources and read them to find they're only casual announcements about the company, in fact ElMundo, LaVanguardia and ElPais is in their specific "PR business section". As our policies state, articles must be improved to be notable, something we've long held. "received coverage outside of its local area, such as national coverage" is not the case if the contents themselves are still unacceptable. To actually quote WP:N, and it also says the same thing, and it also says WP:NOT is still our main policy thus WP: Wikipedia is not a webhost. In fact, the offered searches are showing the same exact mirrored articles, including from the same timed schedule, thus not even satisfying GNG, which says is unconvincing. Several claims of improvement were made before but none happened, so how can we know our policies will see them now? SwisterTwister talk 22:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All news sources that cover company-related topics are not automatically "PR" as some sort of peculiar default. I get the impression that the nominator would simply like all company-related articles to be removed from Wikipedia, regardless of source coverage. North America1000 23:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My evaluation of the sources is similar to User:Cbs527 and these sources are not useful for WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:CORPIND. I had a careful look at previous deletion discussion and the same concerns are expressed there. Despite the huge amount of sources, a careful scrutiny of even the new sources show that these are not useful.
A notable company would at least have a few indepth sources which provide secondary coverage about the company. This doesn't seem to happen here. What I see is passing mentions or tangential coverage or brief mention of acquisition or essentially someone linked to the company talking about it. There is also nothing in any of the major national newspapers which makes me wonder how much of an impact this had. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See WP:NPASR. Kurykh (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oru Visheshapetta BiriyaniKissa (film)

Oru Visheshapetta BiriyaniKissa (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that principal photography has begun and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 02:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic Nightfury 08:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic Nightfury 08:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isak Rajjak Shaikh

Isak Rajjak Shaikh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) looks more like promotion/CV. Winged Blades Godric 08:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades Godric 08:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades Godric 08:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bishonen | talk 11:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rapper Maddy

Rapper Maddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage in reliable sources to support general notability guidlines. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 00:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 01:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Fifth Harmony. Purely on the numbers, this would be a no-consensus. However looking at the "Keep" opinions here, a lot of them are either based on the "other stuff exists" argument, or they are based on speculation of things that may occur in the future. No prejudice against recreation if and when she has established an independently notable solo career. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Normani Kordei

Normani Kordei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No relevance aside from being a member of Fifth Harmony. All that little information fits on the group's article. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is quite relevant and will be in the future, she will be on Dancing With The Stars from March 20 onwards as a solo artist, the page is needed then for record of her performances, etc. So her account can stay unlike the other members though.

Katty368 (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. We will need somewhere to keep record of her performance and scores. Those over at the DWTS articles always make sure all the celebrity contestants have Wikipedia pages ready before the season begins. CloudKade11 (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep(vote change further below) - I am typically a delete voter. There's too much "bloat" on WP. But, as said above, now that she is on DWTS, she is most likely going to be her own person. --- But I would much rather prefer that the page be redirected until AFTER she becomes notable. Not, "and will be in the future, she will be on". We don't own a crystal ball. We deal in the "here and now", not in future speculation. Kellymoat (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not necessarily see this as a weak keep, I mentioned this show will start on 20 March which is less than 17 days. So when it comes to keeping up her performance updates someone will have to make a whole new article which is very time consuming, competing on a huge reality show and being a member of a big girlgroup makes her relevant enough to have this page considering she will be engaging in more solo endeavors next.
Katty368 (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ALL articles have a large amount of "back data" that need written because we do not start articles until after someone is notable.
We do not create articles based on what could happen in the future. We only deal with the past. Kellymoat (talk) 12:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And as far as I am concerned, DWTS does not need a weekly breakdown. Her entire run can written as two sentences --- Kordei was on the 2017 season of DWTS. She was eliminated in the 3rd week. How much more does it need. Kellymoat (talk) 12:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my thoughts. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - I convinced myself to change my vote. For all we know, every interview on DWTS is going to be about Little Mix. We MUST wait until AFTER she does something. Not before. Kellymoat (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you really think someone on a show that picks the contestants based on recognized NOTABILITY is not notable? GuzzyG (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
D-list celebrities that campaign to be on the show to get themselves some publicity.
Besides, her "notability" is from being a member of a group. A group that has a page. That doesn't mean that she has her own status outside of the group. Kellymoat (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait who is Little Mix? Anyway I am still against the notion of the page being deleted, it's really not a big deal as far as I see. She is notable enough to have her page, I've seen many far less notable people having their own pages, so don't really see a page that has proper sources and everything being deleted.
Katty368 (talk) 05:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out - Little Mix is not the all-girl group Nomandy is in. But really, that just demonstrates how non-notable any of them are (outside of their fanbase). Kellymoat (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fifth Harmony: Not notable outside of being a member of the group. If she gains notability as a solo artist, then the article can be recreated. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 18:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:ENT #1: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions [in this case, Fifth Harmony and DWTS] . The rules block Kordei because of being not "notable" out of the group. Now she's getting coverage for her role on a tv show which puts her over WP:GNG no matter how you slice it it is two events and anything else is guesswork and revisionism. Not to mention precedence, Camila Cabello got an article for quitting and for one song. Louis Tomlinson got one for a football stunt. Zayn Malik got one as soon as he quit. These famous boy bands/girl groups tend to be so famous that one thing outside of the band tends to get them their own articles, i see in this case no reason to break precedence. GuzzyG (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cabello got her article when she was in her second top 20 hit. Kordei hasn't announced a solo career, and there's a place for her little info on the group's article. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was involved in the Cabello chat, it was mainly the one song as it did not relate to the group just like this reality show does not. What place does the reality show have in the group article if it does not relate to the group? Group members do not get articles due to ONEEVENT, but this show creates a second event which means she passes GNG. GuzzyG (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The same place Lauren Jauregui's solo project have in the group article. Each of them have their subsections. We would create an article just for her DWTS scores? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well i would hope the guidelines were followed just for anything. If she is in a separate reality show that does not focus on the musical group from which she is from that creates two things which people know her from which means she passes WP:GNG. Laurens is one song as a featured artist which normally does not count. GuzzyG (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the user above, way less relevant people in groups got their own articles when they had barely had a notable solo project, Kordei is going to be on a show watched by millions and part of a girl group known by millions, this makes her very relevant. Also I'm not at all convinced by the statement that the members are not known by the general public, one person not knowing the members does not make the the group or the members not notable to everyone else. Her article complies with the rules and therefore should not be deleted.

Katty368 (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 05:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with everyone above who've argued to keep the page. Seeing as the members of Fifth Harmony are increasingly working on solo endeavors and with Normani in particular joining the cast of Dancing With The Stars, she will quickly be gaining notoriety as an individual, not just a girl group member, and there will need to be a section on her page dedicated to her time on DWTS. She also does a great deal of philanthropic work that could be placed on the page as well. She has more to her name than previous articles created for other band members with side projects. Stephaniehsueh (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But I will repeat myself -- DWTS hasn't happened yet. WP is not a crystal ball, it cannot tell the future. No one can have notability based on a show that hasn't aired. Kellymoat (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fifth Harmony for the time being. She may gain more coverage in the future for her time on DWTS and other musical/dancing projects, but right now, a majority of her notability is tied up with Fifth Harmony. It is too soon to determine anything about her upcoming appearances on DWTS, and comparisons with other articles on other "less-notable" people is not a strong argument to keep this. I can see this article being created sometime down the line, but it is not warranted right now in my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 08:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I sympathize with some of the 'delete' arguments -- our standards of inclusion for entertainment figures are ridiculously low. But the fact remains that every contestant in the first 23 seasons of this show has their own article, and that fact itself is a strong argument for inclusion here. As for the observation that the current season hasn't actually started yet, that isn't a persuasive argument. Many areas of Wikipedia embrace the notion of a "Future" class of articles, under which articles can be created if they are based on material that has been reliably reported. That's what we have here. If something happens in the near future that negates the subject's claim to notability, we can always go through a second nomination. NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Normani deserves to have her own page. She is going to compete in one of the biggest dance competitions in the US. Her group is thriving and she might have more solo endeavours in the future. She has done so many charity work with and without her group. She even has acted in A TV series. There shouldn't be any debate in this topic. Srn27 (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I agree with the two 'keep' arguments above. Normani is about to be on DWTS in 4 days. Every contestant of the previous seasons has their own page, and all of them has their DWTS scores kept. This argument alone should be enough to keep her page. She is also one of the favorites to win this season, so I highly doubt that she'll be eliminated early on. afterpartylaur (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness to the "delete" proponents, we should note that it isn't literally true that the contestant scores appear in every contestant's article. Indeed, the article on Priscilla Presley doesn't even mention her appearance on the show at all. I wouldn't be surprised to find that a good many other articles mention the subject's appearance on the show, but without providing detailed scores. I still believe that the instant article should be kept, but it's not because we need a place to store a duplicate account of her week-by-week performance on the show. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-district V of Mokotów (of Armia Krajowa)

Sub-district V of Mokotów (of Armia Krajowa) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article created in 2009, as an apparent stub of the Polish version of Wikipedia. Has been in violating of WP:CIRC since it's creation, and fails GNG. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 01:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only source supporting this article is another Wikipedia article, which is the definition of circular sourcing. The only source on the article to which this article is linked makes no references to the subject of this article. Not only that, but I failed to find anything of a reliable source supporting anything in this article. I only focused on this one article out of the even because it has been very poorly sourced since it's creation in 2009, as I stated above. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 20:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus here is that, regardless of his publication history, third-party coverage is lacking. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Callahan (economist)

Gene Callahan (economist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

American academic without significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) As for the scholar notability guideline, he is not a full faculty member, and has fairly low Google Scholar citations and trivial library holdings for his field. Considered redirecting to an article on Economics For Real People, as its reviews occupy most of the author's article, but again, low library holdings for the title, and the book was not even listed in Book Review Index or Digest, so the other reviews are niche, minor, or unreliable. Alas. czar 05:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar 05:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar 05:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. czar 05:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – REPEC provides a listing of scholarly articles, all reliable and independent. Also, given the state of "liberal biases" within academia these days, it is not surprising that he's not mainstream. (Just like Helicobacter pylori was not the mainstream cause of stomach ulcers until 1982.) Alas (indeed) upcoming travel prevents me from working on the article. (ARROO!) – S. Rich (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Articles that he wrote are not independent of the subject (himself). The question is what significant coverage in secondary sources or collections show the impact of his work. czar 16:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
??? I count his two books, his staff listing (none independent), and two book reviews mentioned in the nom, published from the same institute that published his books. External links are all listings of his own blog posts. More than sufficient?—not even close... czar 18:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Both his single-digit h-index on Google scholar [39] and his failure to appear on REPEC's list of the top 25% of economists in his home state [40] argue that he does not pass WP:PROF#C1, and no other argument for notability has been adduced. We need academic impact, not just the existence of publications, for notability, and I don't see it here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at H-index#Results_across_disciplines_and_career_levels, I see that "7.6" is an acceptable h-index number for full professors in economics. Callahan (if I read this right) has a "9". – S. Rich (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Citation metrics about the issues with using h-index without added context. @DGG also considered them low. czar 05:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the "citation metrics" guidance does not support David Eppstein's comment. Also, not being in the top 10% (or 25%) REPEC listing is a poor argument. By that logic WP would only have 1,010 US economist articles. But Category:American_economists gives us about 2,000. – S. Rich (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Metrics weren't his sole rationale, though. czar 05:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Without more his argument (like Xxanthippe's below) is WP:ATA. – S. Rich (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that the above arguments were not convincing and that no other sources are forthcoming is not "ATA" czar 06:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 04:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, prolific in terms of publication output, but the guidelines look for third-party attention, not just a high publication count. Comments above implying that Callahan should get a free pass because of 'the state of "liberal biases" within academia these days' are not grounded in policy and should be ignored by the closing administrator. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See WP:NPASR. Kurykh (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Vipers

Flying Vipers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to be a notable band under WP:GNG or WP:BAND. It doesn't look like there are sources beyond event listing, download, shopping, and social media. Largoplazo (talk) 10:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Great band name, but tragically non notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This band meets the first criteria for WP:BAND and has had significant, non-trivial press coverage from reliable sources, including a published article in The Big Takeover Magazine by Jack Rabid (print only). The band also features members from three nationally touring acts including 10 Ft Ganja Plant, Destroy Babylon and Pressure Cooker, mentioned in the recently added references. Rastagroove (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 04:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please avoid asserting that there WP:MUSTBESOURCES; it's not very illuminating and it doesn't address the concerns at hand. Kurykh (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Hero Shivaji

National Hero Shivaji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Could not find sources for passing WP:NFILM. Trying an individual nomination instead to see whether it gives a better result than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aisa Kyon Hota Hai?, which was a multi-page nomination. Per WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, merely stating that sources exist without proof is not an argument to keep. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question --The Drover's Wife, I am willing to believe that a film with two well-know principal actors might be notable, but how can we tell that this is actually the case. I recognize the difficulties in sourcing 1960s Bollywood films from reviews, but there should be books covering the period by now. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't say I have books on 1960s Hindi-language Bollywood films floating around (not least because I don't speak Hindi!), but it is a widely-distributed film starring notable actors, and so it is highly unlikely that Hindi-language sources don't exist. Systemic bias is a bug, not a feature. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The current article source does not support notability. Searches found nothing helpful, just listings in film data bases. No reviews found. No elements of WP:NFO suggesting that RSes likely exist are met. Happy to reconsider if RSes are found that satisfy notability guidelines. Gab4gab (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 07:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- for want of adequate sourcing. As noted above, the only sources available are sparse and routine database entries. Attacking the nominator and asserting without evidence that there surely must be sources out there somewhere, seems a poor defense of this rather bad article. Reyk YO! 20:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 00:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Superhero live-action television series

Superhero live-action television series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fancruft. No sources, all OR and effusive. JesseRafe (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While the issue of OR is problematic, I think those questions were answered in the responses in the discussion. As was the NEO question. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 14:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A-CEEI mechanism

A-CEEI mechanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR, lacks citations, fails N for neologisms. Possible merge with Competitive Equilibrium. Atsme📞📧 16:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, it is quite rude to nominate an article for deletion with such cryptic reasons. I spent a lot of time and effort in writing this article, so if you think it should be deleted, you should spend some effort in explaining your reasons in full English sentences rather than in barely-understandable codes. Now, regarding your reasons:
  1. This is not Original Research. It is a summary of a paper published in top economics journal, with 167 citations.
  2. The sources on which the article are based are well-cited. I agree that it could be good to extend the article with more material and add more citations, but this is not a reason for deletion.
  3. I do not understand what you mean by "fails N for neologisms". I think this reason should be deleted since it is unclear. If you refer to the acronym "A-CEEI" in the title - it is the formal name given to this mechanism in the cited paper.
  4. It should NOT be merged with Competitive Equilibrium. The concepts are related but different. Competitive equilibrium (CE) is a usually a descriptive concept: it describes the situation in free market when the price stabilizes and the demand equals the supply. CEEI is usually a normative concept: it describes a rule for dividing commodities between people. It is inspired by the concept of CE but used in very different contexts and meanings.

--Erel Segal (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To begin, we have thousands of problematic and/or questionable articles that are unassessed, and in this particular case my shorthand was supported by the wikilink to the applicable policy. We use a "curation tool" so when you're going through multiple articles with multiple issues, an editor is likely to use shorthand which some may not understand. Ok, so I suck at remembering all the acronyms but that article lacks citations which is why I called it OR. Shawn in Montreal had you clicked on the blue link where I tagged the article, you would have seen it was linked to WP:NEO. Erel Segal this is not about me being rude - it was actually rude of you to call me rude - it's about me doing my volunteer job as a new page patroller helping to clean-up some of the obnoxious backlog. If you think a single paper published in a credible economics journal passes the policy requirement, then you have no reason to be concerned. State your case, and let the AfD run its course. In the interim, I recommend cleaning up the article so it appears more like an encyclopedic article with citations instead of paper published in an economics journal. Atsme📞📧 19:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Atsme A wikilink to the applicable policy is not enough since it does not explain why you think that this specific article violates the policy. We are all doing volunteer job here... this does not exempt us from politeness.
  • I understand that you do not have time to carefully read and assess all the new articles, but, this does not mean you should mark for deletion any article that you are unsure about. If you are unsure about the value of a new article, it is better to first contact the main author and ask for clarification. --Erel Segal (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Citing a single published paper in a journal doesn't equate into encyclopedic acceptance of a procedure the article claims to be notable based on citing two sources while the majority of the article remains unsourced. The lead of the article states: A-CEEI is a procedure for fair item assignment. The acronym stands for Approximate Competitive Equilibrium from Equal Incomes. What substantiates the procedure as being notable? Is it in wide-spread use, or is the article attempting to make it acceptable? The majority of statements in the article lack citations, so I would think the presumption of OR is justified. Suggestion: cite more published RS. Atsme📞📧 20:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I didn't know there was a subfield of economics dealing with quantitation of just allocation schemes, but there seems to be one and it seems to be quite interested in this idea. I find papers working out implementations [41] [42], proposing alternatives [43] [44], and criticizing its assumptions [45]. It's clearly not a neologism in the sense of NEO (having little or no usage in reliable sources such that it requires analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position). The alternative mghti be to merge to Resource allocation, but that article is much too undeveloped to contain and contextualize this idea. FourViolas (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How come you get four violas while the rest of us have just one, or none? That hardly seems like a fair division. EEng 00:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wasn't already familiar with this topic but Google scholar finds 167 other papers citing Budish's original paper, and 137 other papers containing the exact term "A-CEEI". I think that's well above the threshold of notability for an academic concept. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - the keeps and/or article creator need to add sources to the material in the article or move it to draft space because as it sits now, all but one section remains unsourced which lends credence to the belief there may be a violation of WP:NOR. Atsme📞📧 14:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEXIST: Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. I agree that the article would be improved by incorporating more sources, but WP:Deletion is not cleanup. FourViolas (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but the overall appearance leans to OR. Atsme📞📧 13:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's a fundamental error (no offence meant): you can't assess OR or notability by looking at an article. You have to look at the world outside to do that. The question is whether sufficient reliable sources exist, not whether some editor has cited them in the article. Of course, doing the latter makes it easy for everyone to see that the former is true, which is helpful, but it's not necessary for a keep at AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Preponderance of policy arguments support keeping. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 15:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AmazHS

AmazHS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article's subject does not appear to be notable upon a full review, (coverage in reliable sources is far less than significant, and the criteria of WP:ANYBIO are not met), including a google news search that returns 9 hits (0 of which cover the subject in detail). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How so? Its barely larger than a stub and is littered with sources tagged as "unreliable" (and rightfully so, it seems to be largely sourced by non-reliable Youtube videos and brief mentions in listicle entries. Nothing that shows significant coverage. "Deletion accomplishes" upholding the concepts that shape the entire premise of the website. Sergecross73 msg me 16:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The GameSpot source is strictly an interview - a first party account. The Aftonbladet appears to be a... Swedish tabloid? Neither of these are third party reliable source accounts that help it meet the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 16:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 19:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. This is an undisputedly notable streamer, currently the second most popular Hearthstone streamer. He is a co founder and captain of Team Archon, which he later left to join NRG eSports, which is sponsored by Shaquille O'Neal and other investors. He is currently a consultant for Blizzard and is the host and founder of Amaz Team Championships which had the largest prize pool of any non-Blizzard backed Hearthstone tournament with $250,000 in prizes.
    1. MINOTTI, Mike (2016-10-31). "Hearthstone caster, streamer Amaz turns to Kickstarter for 2nd season of Team League". Venture Beat. Retrieved 2017-03-12.

      The article notes:

      Jason “Amaz” Chan, a popular broadcaster and player of the market-leading digital card game, announced a second season of the Amaz Team Championships. The first Amaz Team Championships had the largest prize pool of any non-Blizzard backed Hearthstone tournament with $250,000. But the second season isn’t guaranteed. Amaz has turned to Kickstarter to help fund the tournament, seeking a goal of $206,322 (that number only looks random because it’s converted from $1.6 million Hong Kong dollars). This time, the prize pool is only starting at $100,000. However, it can go up if the Kickstarter exceeds its goal. Like the first Amaz Team Championships, the second season will be an invitational event focusing on popular Hearthstone personalities, competitors, and streamers. “Whether it has been through their streams, video content, or tournament participation over the years, this is my way of saying ‘Thanks for being involved in the community!'” Amaz explained in the Kickstarter page

    2. Clark, Tim (2016-09-07). "Na'Vi dumps its successful Hearthstone team". PC Gamer. Retrieved 2016-09-25.

      The article notes:

      Adding to the sense that the game is struggling competitively, we also learned today that Jason “Amaz” Chen has left Team Archon, the organisation he co-founded, to join NRG eSports, which includes Shaquille O'Neal among its investors. As a result, the only remaining Archon player, 15 year-old phenom William “Amnesiac” Barton, will now become a free agent. The end of Archon comes as less of a shock, given that the organisation has been gravitating away from competitive play for some time, as indicated by the departures of Purple, Zalae, Orange and the former world champion Firebat. Despite the predictability of Archon’s demise, the fact we now won’t see a second Archon Team League tournament is another blow to the Hearthstone as an esport. With its $250,000 prize pool and concurrent viewers peaking over 120k on Twitch, ATLC can lay strong claim to being the most successful Hearthstone event to date. That there’s now no sign of anything similar on the horizon, and continued question marks over the game’s competitive viability percolating within the community, ought to be of concern to Blizzard’s esports department. And that’s before we even get into talking about Yogg.

    3. Asarch, Steven (2016-11-18). "'Hearthstone' 'Mean Streets Of Gadgetzan' Expansion: Priests Finally Get An Amazing Legendary, Raza The Chained". iDigitalTimes. Retrieved 2016-09-25.

      The article notes:

      Amaz, one of Hearthstone’s most popular streamers, just revealed the best Priest Legendary coming in Mean Streets Of Gadgetzan . Raza The Chained is a 5-mana 5/5 Priest Legendary that has the Battlecry: “if you have no duplicates in your deck, your Hero Power costs zero (0).” That is absolutely bonkers; the possibilities for this card are almost endless. Everyone complained how underpowered Priest was when Purify was announced and now the Hearthstone devs are doing everything they can to make Priest OP as hell.

    4. S, Dan (2016-03-29). "Hearthstone's Whispers of the Old Gods: Mark of Y'Shaarj reveal". ESPN. Retrieved 2016-09-25.

      The article notes:

      First up, we have Jason "Amaz" Chan, the founder of Team Archon, one of the leading teams in competitive Hearthstone. "Mark of Y'Shaarj gives a minion +2/+2 and is a bit more rewarding when it's cast on a beast, but outside of that isn't too interesting as it's very similar to Mark of the Wild," Amaz noted. "The most interesting part with this card, though, is that Blizzard is giving Druids another direction besides the standard Midrange Combo Druid that we are so used to seeing in ranked play and tournaments. This confirms the recent Blizzard interview that they wanted Druids to have beast synergies along with the Hunter class. The fact that you can always cast it on any minion unlike Demonfuse's mechanic makes it a little bit more flexible as well."

    5. Wolf, Jacob (2016-12-01). "Houston Rockets dive into gaming, hire director of esports". ESPN.

      The article notes:

      The Houston Rockets have expanded to esports and gaming, hiring a new director of esports in the team's front office, the franchise announced Thursday. The new director is former Team Archon chief executive officer and Namecheap head of esports Sebastian Park. No further moves for the team have been determined, and it intends to explore all options before making a formal investment.

      The franchise, which has shown interest in esports before, hired Park as an experienced esports executive. He ran Archon, the esports team owned by famous Hearthstone professional player Jason "Amaz" Chan, from 2015 to 2016. Park, 25, is a native of Los Angeles and a Yale graduate in cognitive science.

    6. Morris, Kevin (2014-12-24). "The most important people in esports in 2014". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 2017-03-12. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper= (help)

      The article notes:

      Jason “Amaz” Chan

      DreamHack

      Prominent figures in the Hearthstone community usually fall into one of two categories, player or streamer. Jason “Amaz” Chan is all of that and more. Regularly attracting 35-50,000 viewers on his daily Twitch streams—despite broadcasting in the middle of the day—Amaz has become one of the most popular community streamers, partly because of his unique ability to make his audience feel involved in a team effort. His cries of “do we win?” have become one of the best known catchphrases in the sport.

      Chan also had a very successful 2014 in tournaments winning IEM Shenzen and the M-House Cup, and coming second in the Viagame House Cup and DreamHack Summer. He was the first signing for both Team ROOT and later Team Liquid before leaving to form his own team, Archon, where he snapped up world champion Firebat as his marquee signing.

      His popularity shows no signs of waning, and with the formation of his own team Chan will only become a bigger and more important figure within Hearthstone in 2015.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Amaz to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The strongest source is the latter from 2014 which list him as the top 10 most important figures in eSports since the game's release "regularly attracting 35-50,000 viewers".

    Valoem talk contrib 02:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Loud

We Are Loud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any reliable secondary sources to support notability. One song charting on multiple charts is not enough. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding each of these sources:
[55] - Four lines of vacuous promo from a fansite.
[56] - Their own Allmusic bio.
[57] - A three sentence-long promo from a music promoter.
[58] - A paragraph-long reliable secondary source. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that it's a fansite.
Allmusic is reliable and a secondary source. Doesn't matter if it's "their own bio".
Disagree that it's a music promoter.
Paragraph-long is good enough. Electronic music isn't the same as popular mainstream music for it to immediately have sources with 2-3 pages about a topic. - TheMagnificentist 11:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To meet any WP:MUSIC criteria is not an argument for guaranteed notability. The guidelines clearly specify it means a subject may be notable. One chart entry is a start, perhaps, but In this case there is not enough significant evidence to merit an entry. Most references are user submitted sites. Specifically regarded two sources argued above:
[59] When AllMusic was primarily a print publication it had tight criteria for inclusion. Not so much these days, evolving since it began partnering with Rovi/TiVo database for its content. While the site continues to have independent editorial oversight, their standards have dipped to list bands whose only criteria is that they have produced a product(s) that is offered for retail distribution. A band can be listed that otherwise does not meet a single qualification per WP:MUSIC. Also note that the site itself openly solicits bands to provide their own promotional material to aid them in putting together an entry, making the content a strange mixture of first and third person reference. AllMusic entries therefore need to be assessed on a case by case basis. In the case of this subject, the entry seems very "light".
[60] The site is a collective of mostly amateur (and a few professional) reviewers. Take that for what it is. It's significance is weak. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 19:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samson Gabriel

Samson Gabriel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent evidence of notability. Google search turns up an actor, but no third-party information about an artist. This draft contains peacock language; that isn't grounds for deletion in itself. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Zero sources relating to a painter named "Samson Gabriel" found in article; zero found in web search.198.58.158.1 (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mahindra Mutual Fund

Mahindra Mutual Fund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This company does not appear to meet the standards set out at WP:COMPANY, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH. Sourcing is poor quality but appears to be the best available on the company, which speaks to the company's lack of notability. Anything salvageable can be merged into Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited, but there's no reason for the mutual fund to have its own article. Marquardtika (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' The references listed above are all either announcements in relation to granting a license to the parent to operate a fund or are PR announcements complete with interviews/comments from the CEO or other company officer. -- HighKing++ 14:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Would the solution be to do some sort of preemptive merge in the event that the article is deleted? Or if the article is going to be deleted, should we ask the AFD closer to hold off until a merge has been completed? Marquardtika (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge !votes are allowed at AfD. North America1000 16:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep per point #1 at Wikipedia:Speedy keep because no deletion rationale has been advanced in the nomination. As mentioned below, WP:PNT should be allowed to run its course. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

মাইজভান্ডার দরবার শরীফ

মাইজভান্ডার দরবার শরীফ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entire article is in non-English, and only contains a single ref. Might fit as an article if translated into proper English, or on the language's respective Wiki. UserDe (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is premature. The process for dealing with articles posted in other languages is at WP:PNT. Largoplazo (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now at least. It's in Bengali and is listed at WP:PNT. That process should be allowed to run its course - which may eventually lead to it being nominated for deletion again but at least it'll be in English by then. Neiltonks (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 22:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finmo

Finmo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet the notability standards set out at WP:COMPANY, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH. Sourcing is poor and better sourcing doesn't appear to be available. Written in a folksy, PR way that makes it appear as if a company representative created the article. Marquardtika (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete - Fails WP:COMPANY - No Third party coverage cited at all - the first reference is a companies house listing - so it exists, but that doesn't make it notable, the second is their own blog, the third was issued by the company "We wish to create an entire ecosystem ..." and the fourth doesn't mention them at all - Arjayay (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Allende

Marcelo Allende (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable footballer that fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This footballer has only played in the third tier in Chile, which is not a fully proffessional league per WP:FPL and in youth international matches which is not enough for WP:NFOOTBALL. Also discussed shortly at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Marcelo Allende before going to AfD. Qed237 (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 02:47, 3 March 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. The references provided in the article are simply routine transfer talk. Fenix down (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hermann Bellinghausen

Hermann Bellinghausen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only reference to this WP:BLP is a NYT article that gives only a passing mention of the subject, a mention which shows no notability. Thus, fails WP:GNG. First Light (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medisize Schweiz AG

Medisize Schweiz AG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Not an independent company. Unsourced (and I could not find proper independent sourcing elsewhere) The Banner talk 12:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, no "evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product" and if the article's creator is correct in saying that it is merely a branch of a larger company, that is actually another for deletion. YSSYguy (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 21:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raria

Raria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any source to support if this clan exists. Deproded by the author without any improvements. The article was deleted back in 2014 after the expiration of PROD (see Raraya). GSS (talk|c|em) 17:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - weak because I would have recommended redirecting to Rajput or elsewhere if I had found passing mention in reliable sources, but I don't even find that. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Smmurphy: I tried per all possible options listed at WP:INDAFD#Main points but can't find anything. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See WP:NPASR. Kurykh (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serge Renko

Serge Renko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable actor despite his 30 odd films I could find almost no in depth information about him. He had one starring role in a notable film but all the other roles seem to be secondary or in non-notable films. I think he fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prose in the Park Literary Festival

Prose in the Park Literary Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability; cited only to its own website. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 21:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gayle McLaughlin

Gayle McLaughlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

De-prodded with the false rationale that previous service as Mayor of a city of 100,000 indicates inherent notability. Fails the notability criteria set out at WP:NPOL which states "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" and which means this article must meet WP:GNG namely having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which this individual has not. All of the sources are effectively useless. They are either hyper-local coverage of the Mayoral election, non-secondary and non-independent sources or a single Fox News Channel source about the Mayor attending a political rally. I would appreciate if anyone arguing in favour of keeping could provide clear evidence of a NPOL or GNG pass AusLondonder (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a preliminary matter, the deprodder was right that this article is not suitable for prod. It's hardly a "false rationale" to believe that an article about someone who was twice elected to be mayor of a city over 100,000--especially in this case, where her election made Richmond the largest city in the country to elect a Green Party member as mayor--deserves the full review of an AfD rather than the summary procedure that WP:Proposed deletion reserves for deletions that are reasonably expected to be "uncontroversial". On the merits of notability, the search string <Gayle McLaughlin Green Mayor> yields hundreds of potential sources, including national coverage not only of the unusual circumstances of her election and re-election, but also of such policies as (a) her unusual proposal to use eminent domain to acquire defaulted mortgages from the lending banks (New York Times [66]; The Nation [67]; Associated Press, reprinted in multiple newspapers around the country [68][69][70][71]; USA Today [72]); (b) her support for worker owned co-ops as a remedy for urban poverty (Los Angeles Times [73]); (c) her advocacy of a tax on soda and sugar (New York Times [74]); and her challenges to the city's dominant employer, Chevron (In These Times [75]; Los Angeles Times [76]; Moyers & Company [77]). I think notability is clear here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that coverage of the circumstances surrounding her election as a local small city Mayor or routine coverage of her work as local small city Mayor such as coverage of her "support for worker owned co-ops" in the local newspaper demonstrate notability of her as an individual. Doing her job as a mayor does not equate to lasting significance. There are approximately 500 larger cities in India. Is everyone who ever served as a mayor in those cities notable for just doing their job? AusLondonder (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the Los Angeles Times is not the "local newspaper" for Richmond, which is part of the San Francisco metropolitan area and almost 400 miles from Los Angeles. The sources I noted above are national media reporting on the unusual activities and policies of the mayor. There is a lot of such coverage. By definiton, that's notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That particular article was published on the "local" section of the Los Angles Times website. It is only a passing mention of McLaughlin anyway, as the subject matter of the article is worked-owned cooperatives. Does it demonstrate notability of Mercedes Burnell, also mentioned in the article? AusLondonder (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If their articles are adequately and reliably sourced, then yes, they are. They certainly wouldn't get an unsourced or minimally sourced inclusion freebie just for existing, but they are notable "for just doing their job" if there's enough reliable sourcing about them doing their job to clear WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that the LA Times includes the mention in the local section, shows they think she is a local politician, despite what others may think is and is not local for the LA Times. There is not enough coverage to rise above routine and justify having this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1) The subject was an independently elected Mayor of a city well above the usual cutoff for the presumption of notability for mayors. 2) The coverage shown by Arxiloxos indicates nationwide and significant interest in the subject, well above what is usual for a similarly positioned elected official. 3) While other stuff exists, there are multiple mayors of Richmond that have articles. --Enos733 (talk) 04:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Enos733: Given that would create a situation in which tens of thousands of people gloablly would be entitled to article can you please link me to a discussion or guideline supporting you assertion that a city of 100,000 is "well above the usual cutoff for the presumption of notability for mayors"?
WP:POLOUTCOMES states "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD." A couple of AfD's with 50,000 as a threshold have been Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jess Green and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard W. Suscha --Enos733 (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to meet the minimum threshold for WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. By the very nature of what a mayor is and does, the bulk of her coverage is always going to be predominantly local — so the localness or non-localness of the sources is not the controlling factor in and of itself. If she had been a city councillor and not a mayor, the presence or absence of more than just local sourceability would carry a lot more weight — but for mayors the bar to inclusion in WP:POLOUTCOMES is markedly lower than the bar for councillor inclusion, so as long as there's a reasonable volume of sourcing it is not as critically important that the coverage encompass an unusually large geographic range.
    To be fair, AusLondoner is drawing from British standards for mayoral notability, where with a handful of exceptions the mayoralty of most places is a rotational "Buggins' turn" position where the most senior person on council who hasn't had their turn yet automatically gets to be "mayor" for a year, and thus has very little direct executive power and very little substantive coverage — but that's not the way it works in most North American cities, where the mayors are directly elected and have considerable power over the direction of city business. And that's the thing I think he's missing: the notability standard for mayors does hinge significantly on the question of whether that city's mayoralty is a directly elected position or a "thanks for coming out" ribbon.
    So for a directly elected executive mayor, a population of 100K certainly wouldn't entitle her to keep an unsourced stub — but it is absolutely large enough to get a mayor included in Wikipedia if the article is adequately sourced. 50K, 10K, even 5K is enough if the article is genuinely substantive and well sourced — the population size test actually only comes into play if we're in a position where we have to figure out how much benefit of the doubt to extend to a poorly sourced article on the question of whether better sources are likely to be found or not. It's irrelevant if the article is already well-sourced and substantive, however — even the mayor of a village of just 10 people can get a Wikipedia article if they've been properly shown to clear GNG for it. Bearcat (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: Your take on this article seems to be rather different to your take at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Cohen. AusLondonder (talk) 09:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Linda Cohen's notability was stacked on just three citations to the same local newspaper, and unreliable local blogs otherwise, not anywhere near as many citations to a variety of newspapers as has already been shown here. "Local" wasn't the controlling factor there either — it was (a) the fact that the volume of RS coverage being shown wasn't a clear cut GNG pass in the first place, and (b) regardless of locality or non-locality there was only one newspaper involved rather than several, and all of the articles in question were of the WP:ROUTINE variety ("Cohen wins election" on election night, etc.) rather than substantive coverage about stuff she did in the mayor's chair — local coverage of the latter type does count for more than local coverage of the "reporting the results on election night" type does, and the coverage in this article is significantly more than purely local anyway. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_March_10&oldid=770855924"