Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 12: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:11, 20 April 2017

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 April	13 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss melera

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

Miss Melera has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works. In the references given this mentions her in one sentence along with other DJs; this merely has a photo of her (she is not even mentioned in the article); this is a social media site for electronic music; and this like the second merely has a photo of Melera and doesn't even mention her. The article makes no claims of albums charting, being certified gold, or any other facet of WP:MUSIC. She may meet the criteria but this article isn't reflecting it. Justeditingtoday (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the coverage needed for WP:MUSICBIO. Agree with nom regarding article sources. Searching finds plenty of mentions in event performer lists. Best found was this event bio blurb. Happy to reconsider if better sources are found. Gab4gab (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 16 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National engineering challenge

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

Although it sounds notable from the first sentence "...in 150 cities" this is in fact just a national academic competition like hundreds that happen all over the world all the time. Article - which also appears promotional for the Gate Academy - was mostly written by a COI editor and all the references are primary. There's not a lot out there in terms of references and many are to this which appears to be a different competition with the same name. Black Kite (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the independent coverage needed for WP:GNG. I did find articles like this which read like press release material. It's possible more is out there waiting to be found. There are other 'challenges' with that same name besides this one from India. Gab4gab (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 150 cities? No independent evidence exists. For a scientific endeavor, that is sketchy. Bearian (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice for future recreation if further RS demonstrating GNG become available DarjeelingTea (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:05, 19 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yaar? (film)

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

Unreleased films only meet film notability if production is notable. This makes no mention of anything notable about production. Google search shows the meaning of the word and other previous films with this title, but no mention of an upcoming 2017 film. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NFILM and reasoning mentioned above. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreleased film fails WP:NFF. Nothing notable in production coverage found. Gab4gab (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a tweet by the lead actor, posing for an on-location selfie with co-actor Sonia Aggawal, dated March, 6 2017: https://twitter.com/iamlakshmirai/status/838997960906133505 The publicity has apparently been less so far.103.74.141.16 (talk) 04:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NFILM DarjeelingTea (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFILM.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:07, 19 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Berggruen Prize

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

Duplicate page with more information Tomcohen05 (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of what? -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 21:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep, tentatively: I see that this article was created 12 May 2016 (see this early version with substantially the same material as had already appeared in the "Berggruen Philosophy Prize" section of the Berggruen Institute article. There is duplication, yes, e.g. listing all members of the awards committee, which should not be in two places. It may be reasonable for the material to be split out of the Institute article, and then its section should now be edited down. --do ncr am 02:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - assuming this is an annual prize (as it is intended to be), it is useful to have a page independent of the institution. If the prize was discontinued, it might makes sense to merge it back into the institute. But the institute's page is long enough that this seems like a nice thing to spin out, as it seems to me to satisfy WP:N. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, It seems to me that the Berggruen Prize has generated sufficient publicity and is notable enough to warrant its own page, and will certainly continue to each year it is warded. Tmnh07 (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This was a mistake deletion. I meant to delete the duplicate (but less robust) page Berggruen Prize. Tomcohen05 (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- For uncontentious matters, which I think is, you can merge the two articles together by following the merge instructions (Wikipedia:Merging) which are linked in the top of the Berggruen Prize article. Given that the notice intimating the merge has been on that article for several months, with no-one objecting, I doubt doing so now will prove to be an issue. An ordinary merge like this doesn't need a deletion discussion. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 20:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Thanks! I merged the two articles following the procedure on the link you shared.Tomcohen05 (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomcohen05 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 17 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. Consensus is that he fails WP:NFOOTBALL and the coverage is not sufficient to meet the WP:GNG. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kristijan Boskovski

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

Article on a footballer who has never played in a fully-professional league, thus failing WP:NFOOTY. The article is also written in a suspiciously promotional tone by an SPA who has suddenly reappeared after four months without editing to ask why it's being deleted. Was prodded, but removed by an IP without explanation. Number 5 7 20:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article's creator has admitted to being "very close" to the subject. Number 5 7 22:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league and does not have enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 12:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject definitely has a significant amount of coverage, the 9 sourced in the article plus many more online. The fact that most of them are not in English doesn't mean anything. To be fair well written and well cited. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:13, 19 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Sampaloc milk tea poisoning

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

As per WP:SENSATION, a minor isolated crime made it to a sensational news series by the local national media. Also fails WP:LASTING since there is no credible notable event arising from this incident. Like a nation-wide law enacted (not just proposed or filed) Hariboneagle927 (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of good sources. coverage seems extensive. the article is ok. Overall it covers WP:COVERAGE.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because it seems to lack ongoing coverage and because the fact that "Manila prosecutor clears milk tea poison suspect " [1] raises BLP issues.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are still ongoing concerns with the rampant sale of oxalic acid in Manila, the same poisonous chemical compound that was the cause of the deaths two years ago.1 2--RioHondo (talk) 07:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article. Not everything newsworthy is encyclopedic. No need to have a whole separate article about an alleged crime whose charges have been dismissed, with no WP:LASTING effect. We can put a small amount of content reflecting the concerns about rampant sales of oxalic acid in manila into oxalic acid#Toxicity and safety. Something like, "in 2015, a case of apparent poisoning by oxalic acid raised concerns in Manlila about unrestricted sales of the compound, however, no laws were passed or changed as a followup and the charges in the case were dismissed".ref There are concerns about lots of things, but it doesn't mean we need a separate article on any incident that is related to those concerns. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not even a major crime in that barangay; it was totally run of the mill. I have been there -- to visit my partner's family for Pasko -- and this was not even a topic of discussion compared to other crimes in the area. Bearian (talk) 13:38, 18 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. ‑Scottywong | gab _ 16:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Quiapo road rage incident

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

As per WP:SENSATION. This incident is just one of the occasional road rage incidents sensationalized by the local media. Isolated crime. Also fails WP:LASTING. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 23:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of good sources. coverage seems extensive. the article is ok. Overall it covers WP:COVERAGE.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Hariboneagle927. This is an isolated incident that only get covered heavily because of sensationalist local media, and much of a crime being fit for a headline in a tabloid. Plus, this crime has no historical importance, as like Hariboneagle927 said.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC) Comment This incident may reflect safety and security of cyclists in the Philippines. See my comments below.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
possible keep case is, in fact, continuing to draw some atteniton in the national conversation on gun crime. gNews search: [2].E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Numerous road rage incidents have occurred all over the world. Outside of media sensationalism, I can't see how this seems to be a notable incident. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally run of the mill. My road rage incident in Quiapo consisted of puking my guts out from motion sickness due to the snarled traffic from the back seat of a taxicab. The traffic is horrific there during Pasko.Bearian (talk) 02:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A memorial installed where the biker was killed might speak of its significance to the local cycling community at least.1 2 --RioHondo (talk) 07:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:LASTING. This isn't a particularly notable event – road rage incidents happen all the time. There are a few references, but mostly to local news stories with brief coverage. Laurdecl ^talk 07:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. On a serious note: I'm not sure anyone who has not been there can comprehend just how common road rage is in Manila, especially crowded areas such as Quiapo. To list a single incident in 2016 is to downplay all of the hundreds of other incidents. Bearian (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, precisely why this incident isn't really notable than any other incidents. It just happens that this particular case went viral in social media. At best, the national media covered the incident to bring light to a prevailing wider issue (Road rage in Metro Manila) like how there is a shock incident every New Years Eve in the country to highlight the issue of illegal firecrackers/indiscriminate firing of guns resulting to stray bullet incidents. Although a generalized article not focusing on a particular hyped incident on the issues I mentioned might be notable enough for an article.

Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the traffic congestion in Metro Manila, which cause many road rage accidents, the Quiapo incident may reflect security of cyclists, along with many accidents involving motor vehicle collisions with bicycles. An article discussing bicyclists' safety in the Philippines can be created to explain the issues they face, and mention incidents reflecting them, if sources explicitly state that fact. Yes, bicyclists in the Philippines face safety and security issues from undisciplined drivers, and only a few roads have bicycle-friendly facilities, like bike lanes or bicycle priority, however many drivers still ignore themy, and cyclists are at risk.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is detailed enough and does not resemble a news article, though it might need some fleshing out, i.e. expansion. As is, the event is still developing as the suspect is in police custody. --George Ho (talk) 02:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Violates WP:LASTING.Winged Blades^Godric 16:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Godric. Even if the effects of the event itself are not lasting, the article may still meet the main notability guideline, especially GNG. If not, then WP:Verifiability#Notability or WP:GUIDES, which says to give some occasional exceptions to the NEVENTS and/or N. George Ho (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete nothing significant or noteworthy here. Sorry but crime happens, it'll get sensationalized in the media for a time but there's no lasting significance of this event. ValarianB (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:MILL crime, coverage and impact are nothing out of the ordinary for such. Sandstein 19:14, 28 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qublix games

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

Small game company with no evidence of meeting WP:CORP criteria for inclusion. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are just some quick links i was able to find. A leading gaming company that works with major players in the industry cannot be called small: http://www.adweek.com/digital/qublix-launches-candy-bubble-rush-on-facebook/ https://www.aol.com/article/2012/06/30/jewel-journey-facebook-review/20269716/ https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=forest+rescue+game https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=qublix+poker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriscpop (talk • contribs) 20:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merely "work[ing] with major players" is irrelevant, since "basking in someone else's reflected glory" isn't a notability standard. --Calton | Talk 02:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube videos on the games that they've made do not establish notability. Read WP:GNG. The topic needs significant coverage from reliable independent sources and it doesn't have that. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is literally a directory listing, and the only reference is a Facebook company press notice that one of the company's games was one of 23 "top Facebook games of 2013". --Calton | Talk 02:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Non-notable company. Topic is lacking significant coverage from reliable independent sources. Not a single reliable source at WP:VG/RS has an article discussing the company in depth. There's just a handful of passing mentions of their games. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. TheDeviantPro (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom DarjeelingTea (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant reliable coverage.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:09, 19 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cult Values

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

No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Perhaps too soon. Per article, the band is working on their first album. Mduvekot (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found this, but the source is questionably reliable and I couldn't find any other significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsigned band, presently working on their first album, fails WP:BAND. Sam Sailor 20:04, 20 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bloc Festival

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

Not notable, no sources found Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a source, one reference, on it. May be RS. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These articles are all on the first few pages of Google results. It's clear that the subject meets WP:GNG, at the least. Gongshow talk 02:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gongshow: And dumping the sources here in the AFD will magically made them add themselves to the article, right? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your review of the article prior to your last comment appears to be as thorough as your Google search prior to nomination. Gongshow talk 19:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability has been shown and the references were added to the article. SL93 (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gongshow, who has shown the article topic clearly meets GNG - whether the sources are added or not. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subjects passes GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 14:50, 19 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surveillance capitalism

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

I don't think this is notable enough for a stand alone article. I'll admit that I'm not good at finding things, but there seems to be a lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. I suggest we delete this article and merge anything with here with encyclopedic value into other articles. TheDracologist (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR. Sounds like an essay. South Nashua (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically which part(s) is/are OR? I see a lot of sources here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (probably) - I'm seeing a lot of coverage of this concept that would seem to justify inclusion somewhere. As I'm not seeing a logical merge target, it seems like a keep is probable. Guardian, Wired, Boing Boing, The Conversation, Frankfurter Allgemeine, RT, Huffington Post... just the first couple pages of ghits. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Rhododendrites — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphim System (talk • contribs) 00:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitely sufficient WP:RS. --Fixuture (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I noted on the talk page of the article that I felt that there was over-emphasis on the particular term, "surveillance capitalism". This term refers to a concept which developed after about 2000, so there is not yet one name for it, but "surveillance capitalism" is one term for describing the concept. The concept itself is discussed in various places. For example, in Tim Wu's Attention Merchants he talks about companies watching what everyone does and selling both the public's attention and detailed information about audiences. I would not object to a name change for this concept if consensus found that another term fit better with the available sources. For example, "Selling of mass surveillance data" might be a more general name for this, or "Commercial capture of surveillance data", or "Mass surveillance data as an asset". The Zuboff theory itself could probably be notable as a stand-alone article, but right how, the content of this Wikipedia article is covering a broader concept which I also think is well covered by the cited sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see a number of mentions of this term in scholarly sources ([3]). Seems to meet GNG. The nominator should use Google Scholar and Books before nominating academic topics.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a thing, it's being talked about, and even films are being made on it. Bearian (talk) 13:43, 18 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 keep. General consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) f e minist 04:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Farmer Maggot

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

Very surprised this exists as an independent article and has since 2005. Incredibly minor character from an important novel with slightly less minor appearance in a much less famous work by the same author. I don't doubt that, given the amount of scholarship on Tolkien's work, a lot of critical work has covered this character, but it seems incredibly arbitrary that Farmer Maggot gets a standalone article while Durin's Bane is consigned to a list within an article on its species -- maybe create Hobbit#Individual hobbits? While my experience with Wikipedia's coverage of Game of Thrones characters made finding this article a breath of fresh air (how rare it is that English Wikipedia includes an article on an obscure literary character who specifically wasn't played up in a popular screen adaptation and thus wasn't covered extensively in celebrity gossip mags and the like), I seriously think this article might be pushing it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tough call but I would argue for keeping the standalone article. There are several scholarly works that have analysed this character and like Durin's Bane, Maggot has been the subject of professional Tolkien art. In the end it is the combination of reliable sources that makes one article worth of keeping while another one may get redirected. On that note, Durin's Bane used to be a standalone article too but apparently it was redirected to the main Balrog page because it didn't contain any sources at all and consisted more or less of in-universe content.

Anyhow, should there be consensus to not have a full article on Farmer Maggot, the page should not be deleted but merged into List of Hobbits. De728631 (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not favor deleting articles that are more than stubs and that are well sourced. Pages are not a scarce resource to compete for. If some other equally worthy subject does not have its own page, then to me, that justifies writing another page rather than deleting or consolidating what already exists. I don't support keeping arbitrary trivia within articles, and, sure, the whole article in this case might be argued to be trivia. However, given the subject's mention in scholarly works and its portrayal in popular culture, I don't think that argument is likely to succeed. This is not to say that the article is particularly good as written. It's not, but it's also not merely dreck. Strebe (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (consult) 17:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (babble) 17:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Maggot is covered in an astonishing number of books, and in some detail in several of them, surely raising him well above the GNG's threshold. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: I am sympathetic to the "merge" case made above, and am not that bothered about this either way, but you must understand that GNG is a minimum threshold. The most important part of WP:GNG, which seems to be missed virtually every time the guideline is invoked in AFD discussions, is A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I didn't invoke GNG as a deletion rationale (in fact I specifically said that I don't doubt that, given the amount of scholarship on Tolkien's work, a lot of critical work has covered this character, but it seems incredibly arbitrary that [this fictional character should get a standalone article]. Sorry to nitpick, but this is one of my pet peeves. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Notability is judged by passing the GNG and more specialised policies in some cases. There's nothing indiscriminate about an article on a well-known and much-loved character discussed in 1,330 books. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right to say that [n]otability is judged by passing the GNG and more specialised policies in some cases, but notability isn't the only thing determining what topics have standalone articles on Wikipedia. I would love to see some of the 1,330 books discussing the character in-depth. At present the article cites Chance's monograph as saying something that would probably be more at home in our article on Frodo Baggins (that's the context in which she writes it), Dickerson's article (which I admit I haven't read) as saying something about hobbit society (on which we already have a separate article), two illustrations of the character by famous artists who have probably collectively painted hundreds of named characters in Tolkien's legendarium and which are unreliable sources for just about anything we could say about the character other than that they were painted by Artist X on Date Y, and a couple of fictional books by Tolkien himself. I'm assuming your 1,330 estimate comes from GBooks, but as usual GBooks seems to be playing mind-games with me because I'm only seeing about 60 hits. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Google-fu is weak! Anyhow, I just added some more analysis on the published Maggot and his early development. De728631 (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of hobbits. If there were a List of minor Lord of the Rings characters article, that would work too. There's certainly academic discussion that mentions Maggot, but almost everything I can find discusses him in the context of his effect on Frodo. The most detailed seems to be Atherton's discussion, which talks about prior versions of the character. It's marginal, but I think everything that needs to be said would fit into a list article. I also don't think it particularly helps the reader to have characters such as Ghân-buri-Ghân and Farmer Maggot separated into tiny articles; a single article is much useful to someone exploring the background of the book. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GNG is met easily: check the 'books' part of the find sources link and ignore everything by Tolkien himself, and there's still plenty of commentary on the admittedly minor LotR character. Jclemens (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 14:50, 18 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Shepard

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are some sources from cursory searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

From the Greek Mimes to Marcel Marceau and Beyond. Scarecrow Press. pp. 168– . (subscription required)
"World's oldest mime knows the language of love" The Times. (subscription required)
"The World's Oldest Mime". The New Yorker. (short article)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 13:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would opt to keep, NYT has an article on him as primary subject. The article just needs fleshing out more.Mark E (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a long career but no significant accomplishments. Copy includes trivia and appears to have been written by an editor closely connected to the subject (I'm not alleging that it was, but it reads as such). Not encyclopedically relevant, so delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:00, 19 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darrin Doyle

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

Non-notable academic, tagged as such for nine years. While references have been added, it appears largely self-promotion. Ifnord (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I found some blog reviews of his books but nothing major and reliable enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His academic contributions do not rise to the level to pass academic notability, and his books have not recieved the coverage to pass the notability requirements for authors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 19 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Giri

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

The article does not have a single reliable source, and I was not able to find any. I previously blocked the creator per WP:COMPETENCE, and I have serious doubts they understand what reliable sources are. Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Would probably have qualified for Speedy Deletion per WP:G4. Ceosad (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search provided no RSes. The last AfD was less than a year ago and nothing seems to have changed. It's clear that the subject is a singer and has videos online, but I can't find any sources that help subject meet WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:12, 20 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. This is an important temple in U.S would need to be demonstrated by multiple independent sources - and not YouTube videos - to justify an article, alas Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva Murugan Temple

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

nothing but WP:ROUTINE coverage. The assertion that it is the oldest Hindu temple in the US could be a claim to notability, but no sourcing is there for that claim and I found none. No indication of any other historic or architectural significance. John from Idegon (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The informations i got about the temple is from their website. It may or may not be the first hindu temple in U.S. but only few temples of Hinduism are scattered over U.S.A, people can knew about them through Wikipedia. This is an important temple in U.S., eventhough it isnt first, it had attracted a large people of Hindus in U.S and had become one of the most famous temple in U.S. So it must be kept on. I am ready to give additional sources and expand it with truthful informations. Please wait until i fully finish the article.--wiki tamil 100 (talk) 03:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided youtube videos related to the rituals celebrated here and expanded it. All try to expand and add reliable sources to the article. --wiki tamil 100 (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is solely reliant on references from primary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 07:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found no significant coverage in reliable sources. James (^talk/_contribs) 19:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Youtube videos showing rituals do not show its notability beyond that there is no third party coverageFORCE RADICAL (talk) 06:00, 20 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reboiler (disambiguation)

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

This is an unnecessary disambiguation page per WP:TWODABS. That aside, I'm not sure how helpful the minor term is, as "re(-)boiler" isn't mentioned at boiler. Perhaps a hatnote would be better off going to wikt:reboiler, where the term in that context is defined. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2nd entry doesn't meet MOS:DABMENTION, so I would vote no hatnote. However, even if the 2nd one was a valid entry, per twodabs we are still looking at a hatnote not a dab. Boleyn (talk) 08:33, 13 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saddleback Leather Company

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

This is an advertisement, not a valid encyclopedia article. The article starting at the section "Company culture" is pure fluff. Prior to that it relies on two Fox Business sources, by the same author. WP:CORP failure in the extreme. Unsurprisingly, it was created by a one-and-done editor with "SEO" in their name and expanded by another SPA. Bri (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bri (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Part advert and part vanity bio of its owner, for a not-really-notable company and minor entrepreneur. The Sundance stuff seems particularly irrelevant. --Calton | Talk 03:00, 13 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 speedy deleted as a cut-and-paste move (copyright violation). I made a mistake correcting the move, but since the page history only consisted of the copyright violation I'll just leave it deleted, per WP:IAR. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Team-DkS

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

Non-notable team, placed 11th in a non-notable tournament. GNG not met. I'd tag it for WP:A7 but the bar for that has been pushed lower than the Mariana Trench. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Team DK. This page might be a cut-and-paste move, I'm checking. At any rate there seems to be a group calling themselves "Team DkS" which is not related to the (organization?) covered in the sources. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Team DK is China-based, Team-DkS is USA-based and originality-challenged. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:57, 12 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Drew Weinand

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

Article created and edited through manipulation of sock puppetry with notability inconclusive due to potentially forged sources Maineartists (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reluctantly, as I'm openly trans and seek to increase and improve representation of trans people on Wikipedia. But sockpuppetry and dubious sourcing (see article talk page for details) is not the way to go about accomplishing this objective. Funcrunch (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if most of the apparently inflated claims in the article were verified, I believe the subject wouldn't meet notability guidelines. I'd love to be proven wrong. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 22:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article talk page is deleted with the page, assuming the AfD succeeds, no? As well as the sock-puppet investigation, the discussion on Draft talk:Jamie Weinand and Draft:Martin Edward Weinand, and also the publication (and subsequent citing and later deletion) of a press release citing this Wikipedia page should be mentioned here. Trankuility (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Guest reading article: this subject is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.117.242 (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be deleted by now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B07D:EF2D:95A7:231B:A68D:FCE9 (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment It takes 7 days from when the AfD was created to give the proper voting process to occur. There are 2 more days. Maineartists (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AfD debates can be closed earlier per WP:SNOW if there's overwhelming consensus, but with only five !votes (including the nominator) to date, I don't think that's applicable here. Funcrunch (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sign of notability. This almost seems it could be a candidate for deletion as a hoax.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:23, 20 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KRID-LD

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

Inadequately sourced article, from which I've had to strip some advertorially-leaning promotional nonsense ("first known superstation"...er, bulldroppings) about a low-power television station. WP:NMEDIA's base requirement for a television station to earn an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of a demonstrated WP:GNG pass is that it actually originates at least a bit of its own original programming (i.e. a local newscast) -- but this station is licensed as a translator, for which there is no automatic presumption of notability. A station without at least a minimal amount of its own local programming can, of course, still build notability through the use of reliable sources that pass WP:GNG -- but there's no evidence of that being shown here, where the only "sources" are the standard media directory external links. This simply rebroadcasts a bunch of network feeds with no evidence of inserting even its own local commercials, let alone any actual local programming, so there's no automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of enough media coverage to clear GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Stations that exist solely as full-time rebroadcasters of networks (or other stations) don't generally receive the presumed notability of broadcast stations unless there's something (preferably verifiable) to indicate the station has been anything more than that. Particularly for these types of low-power stations, you pretty much need more sourcing than the standard FCC and RabbitEars directory sourcing that establish that the station exists — and existence not only isn't notability, but also doesn't prove notability. As far as I can tell, KRID-LD simply doesn't have the sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline. (And I'd probably go so far as to say that any claim that a low-power station that signed on in 2014 is "the first known TV "Super Station" that broadcasts horizontally and vertically", when the term "superstation" has been around since at least the 1970s, is probably a red flag further establishing non-notability.) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really nowhere to redirect to; station has no cable coverage, claims on website are plain bizarre (Newsmax being the "First dedicated News Network for households that have an antenna"; that network's business strategy is more over the Internet with the allowance to offer the network over-the-air). Usually I'm inclined to keep as an FCC-licensed station, but it seems like this is one of those 'run for fun' stations with no intention to do anything but clog the airwaves and being the 'leftovers' station in the market for declining networks like Retro TV and Heartland, and you can bet the moment H&I gets a full-power slot they're gone from this one. Nate • (chatter) 08:27, 13 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avant Garden

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

Finnish alternative rock band. Article lacks substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. Speedy deletion contested. 2 sources, Facebook and Tumblr. Mduvekot (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found http://www.rockeramagazine.com/mag/index.php/articles/music-reviews/music/item/1522-avant-garden-16-18 but that's not enough. The search for refs was hampered by the similarity of the band's name to several eating establishments and florists. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added all the references I could find — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kekkonensuperman (talk • contribs) 17:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with these added references it still lacks significant, independent coverage. These are largely of the music blog/small press/social media variety: rockeramagazine.com has a link heading "submit your band," so take that for what it's worth. Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added two articles found on Finnish newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.15.187 (talk) 15:30, 16 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aziz Kingrani

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

created by the subject himself. I don't see he pass the WP notability criteria yet. Saqib (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Mentions in media are cases where he is not the subject of the piece, but is a contributor to the newspaper article/radio interview and is therefore not independent. The fact that this is an autobiography is another reason for deletion. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:23, 19 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NecroSeam Chronicles

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

Article about a "series" of books, only one of which has been published, not meeting our notability criteria. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can not find any reliable third party sources discussing or reviewing this book at all. The only sources being used in the article currently are just the product page for the book on the publisher's website, and then links to the author's official website. Additional searches bring up nothing else. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searches turned up literally nothing meaningful to add reliable sources. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 19 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wigor

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

I don't think this passes WP:NBIO. Pl wiki has a lot of footnotes, but mostly to crwodsourced Polish hip-hop encyclopedia, and as a semi-wiki it is about as reliable as IMDb (i.e. not really). Few paras in media like [4] don't seem to cut it. One of his albums briefly charted ([5]) but I doubt it is sufficient. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: In my opinion it does not pass WP:GNG for WP:BLP and does not add any value to the English Wikipedia. CSD under WP:A7, WP:A11 and WP:G11. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 21:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm the one who deprodded the article. I only checked the Polish wikipedia article and saw that it used a number of sources, including the Anthology of Polish Rap [6]. Now I see that this book has a five-page entry about the subject. I don't feel I'm in a position to evaluate whether this is enough to pass WP:GNG (whether by itself or in conjunction with the media articles listed by the nom). – Uanfala (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, in the absence of any further input, I guess my comment should be taken as a provisional keep !vote. – Uanfala (talk) 09:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing. Source found by User:Uanfala is reliable (published by pl:Narodowe Centrum Kultury) and in-depth. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:50, 18 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cherkasov Denis Vladimirovich

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

CV of a businessman that fails WP:GNG. The claim to significance here is that he is the CEO of a subdivision of a larger company. Google returns a few hits in Russian, but they don't appear to be reliable sources. Article reads like it was created to promote the subject. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You'd expect him to have a Russian wikipedia page if he were notable, no? Not. I couldn't find any significant sources. The sources in the article - aren't nearly enough. There might be Russian language sources out there (not as good in reaching those) -but they aren't cited in the article.Icewhiz (talk) 11:07, 14 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shinz Stanz

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

Contested WP:PROD tag. My original concern, which still stands, was

"Does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO or of WP:GNG. The two references are broken links and I'm unable to find other reliable third-party sources on which we could build a decent article." Pichpich (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability and when looking for reliable third party sources, nothing comes up that could be used. -- Dane ^talk 19:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient coverage available to satisfy WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Whilst it's claimed he had a "major hit" in Kenya & Uganda, I cannot find any evidence of this, so therefore also fails to meet the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. --Jack Frost (talk) 03:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just not finding evidence of meeting notability guidelines. Dloh cierekim 07:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

deleteThe only source I can find are his social media profile(s) and website and if we went by number of followers, that would certainly indicate a total lack of notability aside from the total absence of coverage. I'm pretty sure this qualifies for A7 since I don't see a CCS - claiming to have a hit without specifying what "a hit" is and the total lack of support means the C is lacking in CCS CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:13, 19 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 speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 Arizona State Sun Devils women's basketball team

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

Another upcoming event template-like article by confirmed sock Lewisthebeaver. No secondary, independent sources. Mduvekot (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed a WP:G5 speedy delete tag on it accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 12 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 speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Pac-12 Conference Women's Basketball Tournament

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

empty upcoming basketball tournament page, basically a template page for Pac-12 Conference Women's Basketball Tournaments by a sock of confirmed sockpuppet Dereks1x. Not likely to every be completed, has no sources. Mduvekot (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:43, 12 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 redirect to Danbury, Essex#Education. (non-admin closure) f e minist 04:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heathcote School, Essex

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

I found no notability for this school that teaches children from ages 2 to 11. SL93 (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~. Sounds like the sort of place that could be notable, but there is no evidence of it in the article and I could not find anything. The school was founded in 1935 according to its website so maybe someone has written about it since then.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Danbury, Essex, as nothing in the recent RfC affected this practice. As noted above, given the alumni claims and the fact that it has been around for a while, it could be notable, and a redirect to preserve the article's history makes sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Danbury, Essex#Education, a section I just created. I created this so long ago, I don't know the circumstances, but I couldn't find anytihng to confirm it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
redirect. Striking my delete as I agree redirect makes more sense, as it certainly would be a {{R with possibilities}} in case someone has/finds enough to justify its existence.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Just noting for the closer it would be {{R from school}}. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:12, 18 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heidelberg Theological Seminary

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

I found no significant coverage per WP:ORG. The beginning sounds like an advertisement. SL93 (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: We would require accreditation before we start presuming notability for institutions like this. I can't seem to find any independent sources - there are hits for an unrelated seminary of the same name in South Africa, but not for this one. St Anselm (talk) 07:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of coverage in independent sources means that this organisation doesn't meet our notability guidelines. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN -- In theory any college offering tertiary education ought to be notable, but I am dubious about one with just two faculty members. This appears to be an American college which is the seminary of a splinter denomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - note that Heidelberg University (Ohio) was called Heidelberg Theological Seminary in the early 1900s according to newspapers.com, so if the article were kept (admittedly unlikely) a hatnote to that article might be appropriate. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant reliable coverage.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:15, 19 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) 00:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The More I See

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

When the article was first deleted it lacked reliable sources and a claim to notability like a charting album or song. The case is the same here: the page is sourced by YouTube and the group's own page, both not considered reliable. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. The page's only references are its website and Youtube. Meatsgains (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's this article on one of their music videos, but I cannot find much else to indicate notability. Gongshow talk 03:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:03, 20 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 speedy keep under criterion #1, nomination withdrawn and no arguments for deletion are outstanding. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leinster group

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

I cannot find anything about this group, except for Boston car dealers. I'm assuming that the author is related to David, invented it, or is using this as a promo page. CSDs declined L3X1 (distant write) 13:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - NOM WITHDRAWN Notability has been established so page can be curated. Thanks David Eppstein. L3X1 (distant write) 01:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google scholar found four papers calling these things Leinster groups, none by Leinster himself (unsurprisingly — most mathematicians tend not to call things after themselves, preferring to let others do that). They include one where the subject is in the title, in a famous journal: Baishya, Sekhar Jyoti (2014), "Revisiting the Leinster groups", Comptes Rendus Mathématique, 352 (1): 1–6, doi:10.1016/j.crma.2013.11.009, MR 3150758. Another paper primarily on this exact topic (and mentioning the name in the abstract but not the title) is De Medts, Tom; Maróti, Attila (2013), "Perfect numbers and finite groups", Rendiconti del Seminario Matematico della Università di Padova, 129: 17–33, doi:10.4171/RSMUP/129-2, MR 3090628. A more detailed search of papers citing Leinster's unpublished preprint [7] found 11 of them. To me that meets the low bar of WP:GNG for topics of academic research: it is something studied in-depth and published in reliable sources by multiple independent groups of academics. By the way, we might also want to add some disambiguation: Google scholar also finds that "Leinster group" can refer to a group of mountains near Mount Leinster, a series of carved crosses in the high mountains of Ireland, a series of hot springs in Ireland, and a series of nickel sulfide deposits in Australia. Nominator should be warned to follow WP:AGF; the assumption that editors who create articles on obscure topics must be doing so out of self-promotion is a violation of this guideline. And who is David? The article creator is certainly not Tom Leinster, as he doesn't seem to have known that Leinster's paper was eventually published. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Refs seem to establish verifiability and at least minimum notability. See also WP:MANYTHINGS. --Trovatore (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. Also, the idea that the stub to which CSD tags were added was a promotional article strains credulity. --JBL (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CSD criteria is usually never in perfect alighment. Creativity is sometimes needed. L3X1 (distant write) 01:47, 13 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Eastern Jutland (Denmark)

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

See WP:NRIVALRY; there is no evidence of this passing WP:GNG. The article is nothing more than original research and a synthesis of match stats. Also see WP:NOTSTATS. Spiderone 12:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Also consider these previous AfDs: Battle of Central Jutland and Battle of South-Eastern Jutland Spiderone 12:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Was that comment meant for a different AfD? This one is about a rivalry, not a club.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was thanks, copied the wrong boilerplate rationale. Fenix down (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NRIVALRY, no evidence of GNG. Simply because two teams play each other regularly does not create a de facto rivalry. Even if there is a rivalry, it has to be demonstrated that this has received significant, reliable coverage as a notion in itself, not simply the synthesis of a series of match reports. Fenix down (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Fails WP:GNG for a sports rivalry. This follows the same reason I gave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Central Jutland: Although the term 'ærkerivalen" (archrival) is used in news sources about matches between these 2 teams, my search of RS Danish news sources found no significant coverage about the rivalry itself nor any established use of the title "Battle of Eastern Jutland." In fact, Battle of Central/Eastern/Southeastern Jutland is used for matches among several Jutland soccer clubs. Without any specific significant coverage in reliable sources for this rivalry or term, the article fails WP:NRIVALRY. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:55, 13 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) 19:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Winter Session of Indian Parliament

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

There is nothing special in the Winter Session of 2016 to warrant a separate page. The content itself is too general and has nothing encyclopaedic in it. ChunnuBhai (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to see how a season in a parliament is noteworthy. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 15:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The extensive media coverage of the parliamentary sessions demonstrates notability. There were two notable things about the sessions - the fierce debate about the currency demonetization, and the rancor between the different parties that erupted during the sessions. The former could go in the demonetization article, but where would the latter go? While I wouldn't do this kind of article myself, and there are no similar articles that I can find for other Parliament sessions, the info is good, and after some grammar cleanup it reads better. The amount of detail here just wouldn't work being placed into the other parliament articles. Timtempleton (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Delete or at the very least new title. The Hindustantimes article on this topic indicates that there was only a "brief spate" during the parliamentary session and the real uproar later spilled outside the time frame of the parliamentary session. So I would argue that if an article were created it would have to have a different title reflecting the uproar happened later. For example, a title of "2016 Indian monetization controversy".Knox490 (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not worthy of inclusion; legislatures worldwide have rancorous debates (indeed, arguably that's what they're for) and I don't see anything particularly conveying notability on this session. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Notnews. Not notable in any way. just another session of a national legislature. Dloh cierekim 16:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Coffey

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

I am unable to substantial independent coverage in reliable sources that demonstrate that WP:NARTIST is met. SmartSE (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tanton2008 (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC) I would strongly advise you to review the references about the artist.[reply]

Comment - New References were added. Contributions for this article were provided by different users Tanton2008 (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails to satisfy the simplest of WP standards, lacks sufficient reliable, independent secondary sources.Cllgbksr (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Watauga Democrat and Mountain Times are reliable independent secondary sources, fyi. Tanton2008 (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They look like small town circulations to me. Don't believe they satisfy - reliable sourcing. I'll let the populous decide.Cllgbksr (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User Cllgbksr comment makes me concern. It's against Wikipedia code to claim a small town newspaper is not a reliable source. Watauga Democrat started its circulation in 1888 and Mountain Times in 1978. Tanton2008 (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm concerned that you believe there's such a thing as a "Wikipedia code", or that you misstate User:Cllgbks's objection regarding reliable sourcing. --Calton | Talk 04:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Calton You're right, there is no such thing as a Wikipedia code. I meant neutrality regarding the secondary sources. We can't subjectively sort secondary sources based on their circulation. Small town newspapers started last century and earned their place to be reliable news sources for local NC community. It looks like they were the first to write about the artist before The Village Voice did in 2000. -- Tanton2008 (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meant neutrality regarding the secondary sources OK, now you're just using random words you pulled out of the guidelines. And yes, area of coverage -- not circulation, which is your projection -- is one of the many things used to assess sources.

... earned their place to be reliable news sources for local NC community Which, also, no one has questioned, so another straw man. So, to repeat, small-town hometown newspapers do NOT argue for global, national, or even regional notability, nor are they really acceptably reliable sources regarding things outside their circulation area, which you implicitly accept when you wrote "for local NC community". --Calton | Talk 00:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a reference about the artist from The Village Voice Tanton2008 (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor artist, and yes, small-town hometown newspapers do NOT argue for global, national, or even regional notability. See also the notability guidelines for creative people, which I'm not seeing as being met here. --Calton | Talk 04:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a reference about the artist from The Village Voice Tanton2008 (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article contains three secondary independent sources - Village Voice, Watauga Democrat and Mountain Times. Thus meets the basic criteria for notability WP:Basic -- Tanton2008 (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked at the Village Voice WP page you reference and there is no mention of Anthony Coffee - that I can see. Cllgbksr (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cllgbksr The Artist last name - Coffey not Coffee, fyi -- Tanton2008 (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cllgbksr Could you please post a web link for the Village Voice WP page here? The correct reference - The Village Voice September 19, 2000,p. 99 (Paperback) -- Tanton2008 (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do see Tanton2008 has voted "keep" twice on this page, so I know my eyes are working. Cllgbksr (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the page to show only one vote from me. -- Tanton2008 (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - small-town, locally-know artist. The "reference" to the Village Voice, even if we could understand it, apparently only attests that he took place in an exhibit in New York City. This does not constitute the substantive coverage of Coffey which is requisite for notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Orange Mike Again, the view point is subjective instead of neutral. Small-town or big-town is a wrong approach. Instead, we should ask the following question - Are Mountain Times, Watauga Democrat and The Village Voice independent reliable sources? The answer is yes.

Wrong/irrelevant question. One more time: the issue is notability, and even if we accept your reframing it's still "no" because whether a source is considered "reliable" depends entirely on what it's a source FOR. --Calton | Talk 13:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Tanton2008 (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Small town coverage of artists is usually on the lines of human interest stories and not a clear showing of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The artist currently exhibits in New York City at Ward Nasse Gallery and had a solo exhibition in 2013 and numerous group shows. He has works in the private collection of Goldman Sacks and Cantor Fitzgerald -- Tanton2008 (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in its article suggests the Ward Nasse Gallery has any sort of permanent collection nor that exhibiting there is any sort of marker of notability or recognition. And how do you know that this guy's work is owned by Goldman Sachs and/or Cantor Fitzgerald, and what difference would it make that a couple of financial firms needed stuff to hang on the walls of their meeting rooms, anyways? --Calton | Talk 13:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barron's (newspaper) wrote about Ward-Nasse Gallery. The gallery has ben in SoHo NYC for more than 40 years. Regarding Anthony Coffey private collections, this information was published @ his website. -- Tanton2008 (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The mere fact of Barron's publishing something about a gallery says little, if anything, about the gallery's notability or usefulness as a mark of recognition for any of the the artists that have displayed there, and even less about any particular artist. And the stuff about financial firms buying any of this guy's stuff is a) irrelevant to saying anything about his notability, status, and/or talent; and b) a CLAIM by the artist himself, so a primary source at best. Random name-dropping is NOT evidence of anything except attempts at resume-padding. --Calton | Talk 04:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion Can we merge this article into another article? It looks like everyone agrees there was a local coverage about the artist. (Watauga Democrat, Mountain Times) For example, merge it into Boone, North Carolina Or maybe convert the article into a stub in order to let it be expanded later? We have three independent sources about the artist - two local newspapers and one NYC newspaper at this point. -- Tanton2008 (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Convert it to a stub? It IS a stub. And there isn't some sort of lower standard of notability for stubs. --Calton | Talk 13:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ Calton - please don't modify my comments or my vote. I specifically wrote vote "keep" next to my explanation why I think so. Tanton2008 (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you wrote "keep" twice, then put it in the wrong place. --Calton | Talk 13:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Anthony Coffey has been exhibiting in New York's galleries for the past twenty years, which is why The Village Voice writes about him. In addition, primary sources confirm his acceptance within the New York's art scene. Over 20+ references found throughout the article speak for themselves. - CodeSlicer (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC) — CodeSlicer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No, according to article references, the Village Voice has written ONCE about a group show he was in. And primary sources are neither marks of notability nor independent confirmation of anything other than existence. --Calton | Talk 13:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The artist had group and solo exhibitions in NYC per references in the article. His artworks are in museums and private collections per references (web and paper). All this info in the article about him --Tanton2008 (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read a single thing I wrote? --Calton | Talk 04:22, 17 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wade of Aquitaine

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

Article references either lack independence or do not have sufficient breadth of readership (Denver Post) to substantiate a notability claim. I suspect that this article may have been written by someone such as a publisher or marketer (or the book's author?) with a COI, and the paucity of adequate references reflect this. Discussion of the book in independent reliable sources appears to be scarce. Book has won no literary awards and has not been reviewed in a major national newspaper. KDS4444 (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KDS4444:But the Denver Post is an independent source, with information about the novels. The lunacon.org source is also independent and has information about the book's author. The novel spent 20 weeks on the Amazon Kindle Bestseller List too. SFrancis1608 (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lunacon.org identifies the author as one of several presenters at a conference— this is not the same thing as a published independent reliable source, it is only a conference web page with unknown readership and no evidence of editorial oversight; the Denver Post article is independent, yes, but as I already said, I don't think it has the breath of readership to indicate that the books it reviews are going to qualify as notable here on Wikipedia; lastly, having appeared on a bestseller list, while a good start, is not enough to support this notability claim: where was it on this list? Is it a list of fictional books sold or a list of all books sold? How long is the list? If the list is of 200 top fiction books, then being there for 20 weeks at position 187 starts to sound less convincing. If the book was truly notable, there should be ample discussion of it in the book reviews of multiple major national papers— I was not able to find any such discussion. KDS4444 (talk) 12:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KDS4444: I read the rules for substantiating Wikipedia articles. There are five sources for the article and five external pages which back up what the article says. I have also quoted from these sources to ensure that the article remains valid.SFrancis1608 (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KDS4444:The Denver Post picked up their story from Newsday's story on 2/13/2008, about it being one of the first Kindle books: circulation 437,000 Daily 495,000 Sunday. The book was top five on Kindle in action, adventure and war too SFrancis1608 (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KDS4444:The Denver Post has a readership of 1.2 million. I think you should take a look at the Wikipedia page for the Denver Post: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Denver_Post, which will give you more information about how popular the series is. SFrancis1608 (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KDS4444:I also have physical evidence that supports the validity of this article and the book series. Can we provide details of these sources as back up for a start? SFrancis1608 (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. References include a wiki, an article with a ~~one~~ two sentence mention of this book, the web site of a company which promotes books on behalf of authors, the web site of a company selling the book, etc. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: But you're forgetting the Denver post article, which has a following of 1.2 million. The article is written in a neutral tone SFrancis1608 (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not. That was that article which I said had a one sentence mention of the book, though checking now I see that actually two of the five sentences about Ben Parris are about Wade of Aquitaine, so I am correcting my post above. However, by no stretch of the imagination is that substantial coverage. As for being "written in a neutral tone", that is totally irrelevant to what I wrote above, which was about lack of evidence of notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: Could you let me know what is wrong with the article specifically? How can I fix it? SFrancis1608 (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't necessarily a question of "fixing"— notability is something which either is or is not, not something which one can fix by changing the presentation of existing information. The book may become notable in the future— that is always a possibility. But that does not mean that there is evidence for its notability right now. KDS4444 (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KDS4444: @JamesBWatson: If notability and substantial coverage vis a vis number of lines in a major paper is what you're concerned about, the entire Newsday story I cited--a full page-- was devoted to this article. SFrancis1608 (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just searched the Newsday website (you did not provide a link) but could find no evidence of their having written a piece on this book, though even if I had, "Newsday" appears to be only a local Long Island publication. KDS4444 (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Check that, I just did a second search and found the reference. It is titled "Cool2know", and here is the link. What I was not able to determine, however, without paying for access, is whether or not the article even mentions the book. The abstract does not, and the title does not suggest that it does. I am willing to grant (sight unseen) that the article does mention the book somewhere— that alone does not constitute substantive coverage of it. If the article were about the book, and if the article were published in a newspaper with broad circulation (I recant my previous assessment of the Denver Post, which likely does have readership breadth), and if there were at least two such articles in existence, a notability claim might stand. KDS4444 (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this reads like a typical promo piece by somebody with strong affiliation with the books. No evidence that there is any significant notability here. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's limited evidence of notability. The book was self-published 9 years ago, and despite claims of initially being highly ranked on the Kindle, only has 22 reviews at this date. I put a delete vote on the author's article as well, since without the book being notable, there's not much else in the media coverage to suggest sufficient notability. Perhaps when the sequel comes out that will bring new interest in his work. Timtempleton (talk) 23:46, 21 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alapanathile Thenum Vayambum

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

Book gets zero hits on Google Books, and zero hits on Google News; a regular Google search turns up announcements of the launching of the book, which makes me think this article is basically promotional. No interlanguage links to verify a notability claim. KDS4444 (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if it was such a landmark then you'd expect at least some coverage Spiderone 12:37, 12 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darksiders (series)

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

An unnecessary and redundant article. There are two Darksiders games: Darksiders and Darksiders II. This article just rehashes the information on those two pages, without any new information or general overview of the series (which consists of two entries, so there's not much to go on either). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As stated, this page is unnecessary as the "series" only consists of two games, and all of the information here is just duplicative of the information already found on the two games' own articles. The only sources being used are the reviews of each game which, again, is already included on the pages for the individual games. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redundant since there are only two games in the series, and prospects for a third game are shaky at best.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The general consensus is that, at the very least, 3 titles would be required to warrant a series article. All info within this article is redundant to either entry it represents. Sergecross73 msg me 12:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is little coverage discussing the series outside of the two individual games. Any coverage falls under the scope of those articles so this is a redundant content fork. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:16, 19 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timilehin Bello

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

Zazzysa (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Zazzysa (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zazzysa (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the subject of the article meets Wikipedia notability criteria. He is a renowned PR executive in Nigeria, whose clientele runs through majority of Nigeria's top celebrities and companies. Pflex (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is rude to put people's article up for deletion without any sensible deletion rationale. Typing fails GNG shouldn't be so difficult naa. That being said, article fails WP:NPERSON. the award won isn't notable. Many of the sources present fails Wp:RS. Biographies should be the most thorough of all our articles, everybody shouldn't have a wiki article on himself. Nothing special about this young man to warrant a wiki article. Darreg (talk) 11:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Darreg, this article fails WP:GNG.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 03:13, 15 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 redirect to Fairy chess piece#H. redirects are cheap ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hawk (chess)

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

Does not have WP:RSs to satisfy WP:Notability for a stand-alone article. --IHTS (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No acceptable sources or claims of notability; internet searches suggest that this is not just due to omission. --JBL (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Double sharp (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Brittle heaven (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fairy chess piece#Notable examples where it is already listed.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the test for notability there? This piece is not notable enough for its own article; how should one determine if it's notable enough to be in that list? --JBL (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - We don't have to debate that here - it can be done at the talk page of the main article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Won't the discussion closer need to see basis for your !vote to redirect in order to evaluate the !vote? AFAIK the only published ref that exists is this, and said ref didn't exist prior to 16 Feb 2017. --IHTS (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Redirects are cheap. Unless the Hawk is a complete hoax (which I don't think anyone has suggested) it's a plausible search term, so why not redirect? There could just be a brief mention there along the lines of, "lesser known examples include the hawk."--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:33, 14 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laragh Gala Variety Show

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

Small local show in a town that (no kidding) has 60 residents, but for some reason doesn't qualify for A7. The current sources are literally the only sources. TimothyJosephWood 10:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom is correct on all counts. We really have to wait a week? --Mkativerata (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I... yeah. TimothyJosephWood 10:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under the clause of WP:A7 that applies to "organised events". Exemplo347 (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I turned down the A7 because I could see a potentially convincing argument for a redirect to Laragh, County Cavan or Stradone, County Cavan, but nobody seems to be making it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication that subject meets WP:EVENT or WP:GNG. Don't see case for redirect (as orphan - and likely to remain so). Guliolopez (talk) 22:47, 14 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vet Tech Institute

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

Not a particularly significant run of the mill college. Tagged as unsourced for several years; I found one source showing some creditations, but nothing else. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This site's hand-wringing A7 brigade long ago decided to turn Wikipedia into a free web hosting service. Deleting this ad would give the college's competitors an unfair commercial advantage.--Mkativerata (talk) 10:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merely being accredited is not a credible claim of significance, so WP:A7 could very easily apply. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for-profit educational institution that doesn't meet notability standards. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:24, 15 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 keep. Closing early per WP:SNOW. It is obvious that this discussion will not result in consensus to delete. Editors remain free to discuss on the talk page whether to merge in content from the history of David Dao (now deleted and redirected to this article, but this is being contested at WP:DRV), or whether to merge part of this content into a more general article about people being forced off airplanes. Any renomination of this article should occur only after the coverage has died down somewhat and the long-term importance of the incident can be better assessed. Sandstein 16:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 3411

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

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

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

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

No. Just... no. Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING (and WP:NNEWS in general). This is an incident that has made headlines thanks to a few folks with cell phones and will probably be nonexistent in two months (though my money is a month). Regardless of my personal thoughts on its longevity, it is still TOOSOON to determine if it will have an impact and should be deleted until such time PERSISTENCE has been demonstrated. Primefac (talk) 01:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just...keep. Keep or merge. cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because...? Primefac (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

front page of NYT and CNN right now, so just keep....just keep or merge cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it makes the front page doesn't mean we must have it. Take a gander at some of those policies I linked. Primefac (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, I'm just expressing an opinion as a guy who's been an editor for a while. It is obvious that you disagree with me. Leave it at that. cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Primefac (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - this is for U.S. airlines what the Rodney King tape was for the police. Of course it's notable. Blythwood (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know this how? Primefac (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, 'notable' is not the same as 'important'. DS (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ ^{(just kidding)} Keep, of course, since I wrote it. It seems to be of greater significance and is likely to have wider impact than, say, the United_Breaks_Guitars incident. I didn't place it in the main UA page in keeping with convention to have incidents on separate pages. See also WP:RAPID. inks ^talk 02:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with you sandboxing this for a few weeks to see if it really does turn into more than a flash-in-the pan headline grabber. Primefac (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is more able to develop if people can collaborate outside a single users' sandbox. Why not just re-nominate on AfD after a few weeks? inks ^talk 03:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. The fact that United (or Republic Airline) broke Code of Federal Regulations (namely, 14 CFR 250.2a) by intentionally bumping fare-paying passengers on non-overbooked flights in exchange for non-revenue crew members makes this a potential court case. C-GAUN (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I keep an eye on a lot of current events articles, some definitely are notable enough for inclusion here, this definitely is not. This is a clear case of WP:NOTNEWS as there is no chance for sustainable notability. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but this is a notable event not only in the aviation industry but to the general public as well. United violated Federal regulations by removing a fare-paying passenger from a non-overbooked flight and it may well set a legal precedence, not to mention the CDA officers involved in the incident are now suspended under the suspicion of using excessive force. C-GAUN (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You really ought to set your crystal ball down. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy, this is not exactly the article itself isn't it? No one is predicting anything here. The officer who dragged him is already on administrative leave as of this afternoon. If I were "predicting" things then I would bring up the fact that the guy is Asian and singling him out is a form of discrimination. C-GAUN (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That entire comment contained exactly zero references to policy. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to tell ya. In fact, the whole nomination, IMHO, is unnecessary at this point per WP:RAPID. I also find that the issue has been covered by so many sources that it has become "very likely to be notable" under WP:EVENTCRIT. FYI, Chinese media are covering the issue now and the netizens are calling to boycott United. C-GAUN (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The event is barely two days old and you are basing your rationale on rumors and social media reactions. You are what people refer to as a "prisoner of the moment".--WaltCip (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First off , try to be a bit more WP:CIVIL. Official state media such as the People's Daily or the Global Times have been covering the event since this early morning, and there is an article on the new York Times about it. OTOH, I noticed that you have been warned about this before. Guess old habits die hard. C-GAUN (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, it may become a significant part of United Airline's history. Sleep pilot (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. Historical or newsworthy events that take place only once (such as the assassination of Abraham Lincoln or the Columbine High School massacre) have to have a significant cultural, international, economic, societal, or governmental impact or be widely regarded as the cause of a notable or historical event. This article clearly doesn't come close to this requirement, and hence I believe it does not need an article on Wikipedia. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. (edit conflict) I'm not completely certain what I think about this article and this AFD (this incident is newsworthy but is it notable?) but, if this standalone article is deleted then the next question will become if there is editorial consensus either for or against including any of the content at the main United Airlines article (with the cycle of adding/reverting going on over there at the moment) but I suppose that is a matter to be taken up at that article's talkpage. Shearonink (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Wikipedia allows the criticism of companies for notable incidents to appear on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing Alexf505 (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexf505: The issue is you need to prove that it's actually notable. So far, no one has here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We're not the news--what is a front page article for a news organization doesn't need to be a standalone article here. So far this hasn't done anything but generate (massive) headlines on social media and in a few news programs, but that this has lasting relevance can't be proven yet. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with DrMies. Wikipedia is a reference website. Not a news website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knox490 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep. I have a slight preference towards merging it under a Controversy section on the United Airlines article. Other airline articles have controversy subbsections, e.g. Qantas. But I can also see this incident and its consequences getting big enough to merit its own article. Am definitely against deletion. Oska (talk) 05:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following two comments are copied from Talk:United Airlines Flight 3411 where I believe they were misplaced Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article -- it is likely to have an impact on future of airline booking policies, especially don't delete too soon as I am sure United is sending people to this page to try to get it deleted. j.williams@okeh.net (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The incident is receiving "significant coverage" by multiple sources and has generated widespread awareness. This meets the general notability standards of wikipedia. Wiki1882 (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep. Can be merged under Controversy section on the United Airlines article or can be a standalone article. But it shouldn't be deleted.Mingus79 (talk) 05:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

Keep. IF removed, what instead? Ignore the incident entirely? A brief mention in the Controversies section? Even in 5 years time, it might still be hard to evaluate the significance of the incident; it may be eventually a turning point for UA, or a turning point may come later after more such incidents TGcoa (talk) 07:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This incident has gotten big enough internationally to the point of becoming of worldwide scrutiny. Furthermore, if the incident of the San Bernardino North Park Elementary School shooting is able to have a its own page why can't this incident as well? It's quite a controversial move that United Airlines made which has stimulated national discussion regarding the practices of overbooking and the use of force for civil matters. >>Atsuke (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is notable and internationally so. An article about the incident in China alone has more than 100 million views. It is also the second massive PR blunder at United in just a few weeks. Adraeus (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.In line with the emphasis that Wikipedia has I feel that there is a duty of care with regards to maintaining this information for future UNITED passengers and making sure that this and events liked it are catalogued in a fair and open way.194.66.32.17 (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The story is big enough to deserve an article. It seems to have too much content to merely merge with the main UA article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, re notnews, but rewrite and transwiki to wikinews, then add a link from main UA article to that article.--KTo288 (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep, otherwise merge to either UA or overbooking article. This article in its current form is poorly written, enough to trigger this AfD. But I see some parallels to this particular AfD about a tasing incident, and apply an old argument that "WP:NOT#NEWS expressly states that "topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial"". Also considering WP:EVENT as a more up-to-date criteria: The level of coverage is substantial, the list of secondary sources that easily passes WP:V should prima facie suffice: This has turned into an investigation from DOT [8], suspension (and possibly charges) [9], a looming lawsuit [10], and an issue about race and response from a foreign country's population [11] [12] and all things considered prima farcie passes WP:GNG. Going by the airline incident criteria, this incident has a reasonable chance of "(resulting) in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry". Also see America West Airlines Flight 556 and nut rage incident where airline incidents in very unusual circumstances makes them sufficiently notable; to be forcibly removed in such a violent manner where the passenger has not posed a threat to safety is "extremely unusual" here [13]. - Mailer Diablo 12:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Mailer Diablo, thanks for laying out the case--though I am not convinced that this adds up to an independent article. If that were the case then millions of singular events can be split off from what otherwise would be main articles--think of Trump's tweets, for instance, every single one of which can be considered notable if we disregard NOTNEWS. John, I still think we're in "merge" territory here. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I gave the article a little work. Let's see if that helps. :) - Mailer Diablo 18:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - High Controversay. Otherwise, move to Wikinews .--1233^Talk 13:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1233 (talk • contribs) [reply]
Delete per above or merge somewhere, doesn't pass WP:EVENT for a standalone article too. Brandmeister^talk 13:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - You have got to be fucking kidding me. How much more of a blatant violation of WP:NOTNEWS can you get? For God's sake.--WaltCip (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider WP:CIVIL please. Well-reasoned arguments have been made on this page without resorting to profanity. Would you consider striking out your comment and rephrasing? inks^talk 14:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is hard to be civil when the keep rationales are so preposterous. "Human rights abuse"? "Censorship"? For the love of God.--WaltCip (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure I follow - those comments by Zigzig20s and Dáibhí Ó Bruadair were made after your "You have got to be fucking kidding me" post, so can't possibly have been a provocation? inks ^talk 14:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This has a paragraph in its proper context at Overselling#Airlines. Truth be told, even that is probably disproportionate. Delete. —Cryptic 13:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Per NOTNEWS. One of the more spectacular cases of WP:RECENTISM I have seen in a while. Long term significance is likely to be nil. Clearly fails the Ten Year Test. This is tabloid silliness that has no place in an encyclopedia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This is exactly what NOT#NEWS and NEVENT are advising not to do, rush to create an article just because there's a burst of news. If this is still in the news in any serious manner next week, then maybe there's something, but that's why NEVENT warns not to rush to create articles just on a burst of news but wait until significance in the long-term has been identified. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per Mailer Diablo. --John (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC) On reflection, Merge is a better outcome for now, with no prejudice against recreating in a couple of weeks if warranted. --John (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - turning into a major controversy, United shares plummeting. Mjroots (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at this point. The primary objection I have to most of the keep arguments here is that they either focus too much on ephemeral news coverage or rely on some future notability. We're not here to include an article based on its future notability, but on its present notability. Maybe this will be demonstrably notable at some point. But it's then that we should have an article, not now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As previously stated several times above, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Sario528 (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I stand by my Delete (for now), I think we should wait about a week, to see how it unfolds. Sario528 (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to United Airlines#Controversy. WP:NOTNEWS, although a small section in United Airlines is good. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very aligned with you: Merge to United Airlines#Controversy. Wykx (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is now a major international story. Here in Ireland this afternoon everybody I meet is talking about it and it's the most read news story on The Irish Times website. It is a double injustice that Wikipedia would partake in censoring knowledge of this incident. Dáibhí Ó Bruadair (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now at least. Possible human rights abuse? Lots of RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge claims of humans right abuse and censorship are overblown, but this incident has caused enough of a stir that it should at least be mentioned in the United Airlines controversy section. Outright deletion would not be ideal. Lepricavark (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to United Airlines#Controversy. No need for an article. This is an encyclopedia not a news rag. Samf4u (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now according to WP:RAPID. Event is covered by diverse sources, the article is already created, and "it is recommended to delay the nomination for deletion for a few days". This is a Wikipedia rule. Kdn1982 15:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdn1982 (talk • contribs)
Keep We work by 3rd party coverage. This has such coverage, internationally too. It's not about one passenger, it's about the lasting damage to United's reputation. United won't get to live this down in a hurry, there is value in us providing an objective record of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to United Airlines#Controversy. Prime example of WP:NOTNEWS. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Past the point of simply being a "brief" blip in the news. Continues to garner immense media coverage and could very well have lasting impacts. Article is worth keeping at this point. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I understand the NOTNEWS position, because this is not an accident with fatalities or major injuries, and had it not been taped it would probably not have become as big a story as it has become. However, the consequences and controversy the incident has caused is significant, so I agree with the analysis that Mailer diablo has put forward. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Don't rush to delete articles, I understand the WP:NOTNEWS concerns but this article has already been created, you're not going to get any sort of consensus in the present environment, and we should see how these events play out before doing anything. --haha169 (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per NOTNEWS - EugεnS¡m¡on 15:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You can't say now that it fails WP:NOTNEWS. Others have mentioned not to rush to delete articles, and they're right. WP:CRYSTALBALL works both ways - see WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. Give it a couple months and see what happens. Smartyllama (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2nd arbitrary section break

Keep this event was widely covered which goes beyond routine news coverage. Also notability is not temporary.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Widespread coverage, United stocks have already fallen, and this event might lead to significant policy changes.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: To simply say that this is "non news" that is simply being posted because of a few people that took videos with cell phones is simply wrong. It's already caused a major plummet in the company's stock, talk of calls for the CEO's resignation and skewering on late night comedy shows. As somebody not far above me said, it works both ways. This should stay for now. ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The stock market one or two days after an event is hardly a good barometer for notability. Look for long-term trends rather than instant reactions. The social media does a really good job at over-amplifying the impact an event has within the first few relative minutes of coverage.--WaltCip (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, don't go pulling out one element of what I said and trying to use it. So maybe that by itself isn't a good indicator, but in combination with other things, I thing it has merit. And I'm certainly hardly the only one to mention it. In any case, yeah, widespread notability, as so many others have said. ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect/merge to United Airlines]. Yes, it is IN THE NEWS, with lots of coverage, since "If it bleeds, it leads." But no, Wikipedia is not "News of The Week.." Fails WP:NOTNEWS. Tens of thousands of airline passengers a year do not get to fly due to airlines' overbooking. Others have had to get off the plane, and did so without drama, as did three passengers before the one man refused to comply with orders of the police to get off. There have been lots of other videos of people being dragged screaming off planes. It might deserve inclusion at the United Airlines article, since they apparently botched the process, when they could have seated the 4 employees before boarding the passengers, could have offered more money to get people to surrender their seats, or the police could have used more persuasion or simple strength to remove an elderly man rather than somehow smashing his face into something and dragging him down the aisle, then somehow letting him run back onto the plane several minutes later and removing him a second time. Then there is the tone-deaf post by an airline executive about having to "re-accomodate" passengers. Whatever slight coverage the incident merits would amount to a couple of sentences at United Airlines. It looks silly to have this article with its infobox listing "1 injured, 70 survivors" as if it were a plane crash. Edison (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Widespread coverage, such an event should be kept to help the firms learn to behave themselves better to their customers. DanGong (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's mission is not moral righteousness.--WaltCip (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, or barring that, merge. The passenger-dragging incident is notable, since it sparked worldwide, probably-lasting outrage and many people are now reading about it. It does not violate WP:NOTNEWS since this doesn't read like a newspaper story or a short-term localized event. We are here to serve readers (of which I am one), not what a few editors think. However, I suggest we move it to another page. epicgenius (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, looks like the story has gained even more traction today. Changing from "Keep" to "Strongly Keep". epicgenius (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for now as meeting WP:GNG. In a month's time, when the dust has settled, then the position can be reviewed and a decision made whether this was simply a transient news event per WP:NOTNEWS or whether there is encyclopaedic value. Deleting now, only for it to be possibly recreated if it turns out there is long-term value, is sub-optimum. Just Chilling (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not need an article of its own; can be a footnote in the main United article. This is just another example of a 24-hour news cycle/social-media-fueled outrage pile-on that will be quickly forgotten as soon as the next news cycle/social-media outrage pops up. While it is in the news, its notability will fade in a matter of weeks, if not days. Darkest Tree Talk 18:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. Whether this falls into the category of NOTNEWS or has a lasting significance remains to be determined, and will largely depend on the follow-up and the media coverage to said follow-up. In the event that the follow-up establishes notability, then obviously there's no benefit to deleting. In the event that there is little or no follow-up and this was simply a 24 hour story that everyone forgets, to keep this discussion running will prejudice the likely future nomination in favour of keep, when in fact the correct decision might be to delete. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a hugely notable incident based on the coverage in sources. This is also one of the lowest points in United Airlines history, and possibly in US airline industry in general. My very best wishes (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep This is easily one of the worst PR disasters of any business in the last 5 to 10 years. Even more. It could have lasting consequences for a lot of people and keeping this for posterity and reference ensure that Wikipedia remains not only a "collection of facts" but an engaged and ever-evolving tool in these times.--DGT15 (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The event has created a strong reaction from politicians, tv personalities, and activists. This follows Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If the Balloon Boy Hoax can get its own Wikipedia page, so can this. Alexf505 (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this. This will go down in the history as an example of poor management of a crisis situation. Many future students of PR will benefit from this entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.103.56 (talk • contribs)
Keep. This isn't just a news trend that will fade. This is one of the lowest points in United Airlines history. If it must be deleted, all the important information should be transported to the United Airlines page under controversies. Gotta edit 'em all 18:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivaorn (talk • contribs)
Keep A lot of the arguments above and poor and not based in policy but overall I have to lean towards keep. Public relations damage and financial implications do appear to be materialising which gives this some lasting significance. WP:NOTNEWS actually states As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. WP:NOTNEWS discourages "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" - not major controversies. AusLondonder (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep We still have United Breaks Guitars 168.215.131.150 (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can understand why this was nominated but the story has developed rapidly since that happened. The United CEO who was named "Communicator of the year" by PR Week just a few weeks ago is now being criticized for a PR disaster in using the "re-accomodating" euphemism and is now calling it a "horrific event" and promising changes in procedures. And then we have the outrage in China and accusations of racism. This goes way beyond routine news coverage so WP:NOTNEWS does not apply here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The news is growing with people calling for a boycott and stock dropping. Might be a delete a month from now after the news dies down. Dislike calls for speedy deletion while the topic is hot and growing. Can't be sure where the tip of the mountain is at. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge merge to the UA article. This incident is notable as an illustration of corporate bullying!!--Petebutt (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If United Breaks Guitars is an article, this should certainly be. Czolgolz (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 20:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - seems significant and notable at the moment. AfD it in a month maybe and see if that gets supported? DBaK (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nomination, its WP:NOTNEWS, and the effects aren't WP:LASTING as of yet. Yes its awful what happened, however overbooking and kicking people off a flight isn't new in the airline industry. Least this could do is to be merged in with United Airlines#Controversies. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 20:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Keep, or merge to History of United Airlines. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Nom was for lack of persistence, which may have been the case at that time. However, now, with United Airlines stock dropping $1.4 Billion ([14]), and with Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton pushing for a congressional hearing ([15]), this flight is going to affect all of us (and United in particular) for a very long time... -- IsaacSt (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge largely per above, I think this event is clearly notable and has attracted a lot of attention, I'm leaning twords a keep rather than a merge, but either one would by far be better than a delete. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, this may set some sort of legal precedent in the future. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 21:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now; it's too soon to decide whether it falls under WP:NOTNEWS or not. My hunch is that it will have lasting societal impact; e.g. the scandal was brought up at the White House press briefing; see video imbed in this article: "United Airlines CEO sorry for 'horrific' passenger removal", BBC News. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a major PR disaster and has already impacted the company visibly, and will likely result in a high profile lawsuit soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halsey L (talk • contribs) 22:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's quite notable. Ptok-Bentoniczny (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP FOREVER - This is absolutely an important article for United Airlines, law enforcement, USA, minority, Asian and Chinese communities, viral videos, etc. If this article is deleted, why don't we also delete all the other articles? The incidence has only been discussed by millions online. Regardless of future impact, if it is not important, notable, and persistent enough for it to be recorded for the sake of history alone, what is? Do we have to wait till billions of people are discussing it? Look at the sheer length of this discussion alone: so many people care enough about it! [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|User talk:]]) 22:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.29.178.9 (talk)
Strong Keep This is a pretty major incident in terms of PR, and has the potential to impact the company's reputation, stock prices, and ticket prices for a considerable amount of time after the fact, all of which, if it happens, can then be catalogued on the article. (Iuio (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Delete United Airlines is by far the worst airline I have ever flown with in any terms, but this incident simply does not suffice to be documented in a separate article. Merging this to the controversies section is a good solution.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - The backlash and response was notable enough to warrant this article 10x over. Aleccat 22:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the time being, enough time hasn't passed to determine whether this will or won't be notable, but the public outcry and activity across social media platforms has currently dwarfed most PR nightmares of this nature. --Aabicus (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This controversy has been escalated into national and international news and has the potential to greatly impact how airlines operate, regulatory and/or legislatively, going forward. Neovu79 (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3rd arbitrary section break

Delete or Merge I feel that what is already included in the United Airlines is plenty of information to support the topic at hand. Just because this recived a lot of media attention dosn't mean an article is needed. An event like this reciving this much contervocy is normal for todays socity. --KDTW Flyer (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite per NOTNEWS and DINC (or merge, whichever action seems more appropriate). While it's definitely TOOSOON right now, the vast number of reliable sources found clearly indicates that this event has already had a major enough impact to warrant notability. However, it still needs to be rewritten to comply with GNG. ToThAc (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The incident is clearly notable, however, I feel as if there is a disconnect between the article structure and the actual subject. The name and structure of the article uses the template for aircraft incidents. However, this was not an aircraft incident, it was an airline incident. The flight number of the aircraft is irrelevant. The article should be renamed to something along the lines of 2016 United Airlines incident. The general content reminds me of something like The Bus Uncle. Note that the article is largely about the incident itself, and not about the vehicle in which the incident occurred. --NoGhost (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: - under WP:NOTNEWS. Sufficiently covered under United Airlines. Also article is misnamed (although that's not grounds for deletion). -Drdisque (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as Wikipedia is indeed a news source. --24.112.201.254 (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Policies suggest otherwise. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 00:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IAR. --24.112.201.254 (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOT. I !voted Keep, but this is not a newspaper. epicgenius (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- To be clear, however, those policies state "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events" AusLondonder (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AusLondonder – Although this is why we have these discussion in AFD's on articles; to see if articles adhere to being either a news report (or even that of original reporting), or an actual event that has lasting effects for the future (WP:N(E)). Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 00:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a borderline case but it does appear there have been some real consequences as a result. AusLondonder (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Article cites 28 sources. The same argument I already outlined for North Park Elementary School shooting applies here as well. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe this is a significant event in the history of United Airlines, and the effects have already been outlined as notable. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for now), per WP:RAPID. The work (making the article) is done. It may become a noteworthy event, or it might join the leggings incident. Either way, per WP:RAPID, it should be left until such time it is determined what the full impact of the incident is. If, at that time, it qualifies for and is voted to be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS, then the paragraph on UA's page will retain the noteworthy information. If it grows into a larger incident (or series of incidents), it may need to be moved to an appropriately titled page (such as a court case, etc). But, as stated, per WP:RAPID, strong keep. 173.227.169.66 (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. When the news fallout is over, we will examine the real, long-term consequences. If this was just a terrible PR incident for United, it may be a good idea to delete this article or perhaps move it to Wikinews, but it certainly merits an addition in the criticism portion of the main article. Otherwise, if it marks long-term troubles for United or a major boycott, this article definitely deserves to be kept. Longbyte1 (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Kaldari (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but could merge if deleted. Significant outcome from this event, including major financlal loss of revenue to the airline, calls for a boycott, and it has brought “bumping” to the attention of the public in a way that I don’t think has ever happened before. Extensive world-wide coverage in the news media at the moment.--Dmol (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ps. If kept, needs to be renamed. --Dmol (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the UA main article. This is the exact thing we are not. An article completely sourced to media outlets trying to drum up traffic with no reaL infomation. Embarrassing--Moxy (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Global newsworthiness raising issues of race, police brutality in USA. Fatty wawa (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NOTNEWS. A passenger was forced off a domestic flight in the United States. As the nominator indicated, the long term significance of this incident is unclear. Further, airlines have the legal right to remove passengers from their flights. So United's actions are not illegal. A d*ck move for sure, but not illegal. Just a few days ago, a French woman gave birth on a Turkish Airlines flight. This was also "in the news" around the world and covered by many of the same outlets covering this story. My point being, a story appearing in media outlets, does not necessarily make it notable enough for Wikipedia. Great Dessert (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable event, not "routine" news. How enduring its significance will be remains to be seen, but extraordinary nature of the incident--now with multiple investigations and reactions from government agencies and officeholders (and a plenitude of RS)--qualifies for an article, although Merge is also a viable option. Delete seems like an unnecessarily narrow interpretation of policies/guidelines. DonFB (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SNOWBALL. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable at the moment, maybe after it settles down, a redirect may be more appropriate. Ouseriv (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Highly notable news case. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 03:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now due to the enormous amount of views the page is attracting. Until attention on the event dies down, the page should stay up. Thatwweguy 619 (talk) 03:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"'Super Strong Speedy Snow Keep"' one of the most intellectually significant events in all of history. (Vote worth 5 regular votes) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B413:E935:789C:CE30:97DD:FAF (talk) 04:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepThe enormous attention this story is getting makes me wonder how anybody would still contest the notability. How many news articles and responses from governments is enough? US congress even considered passing legislation in response, for goodness sake. I don't understand why it is not obvious to so many this article should be kept.--I'm on day 4 (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - this is important news event, and the White House responded this event just now.--Shwangtianyuan Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 04:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this event has received significant coverage. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 05:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, huge response here shows level of interest, topic passes the GNG, delete !votes are to be discounted as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Any admin who decides to delete this will find it (and themselves) on DRV. Abductive (reasoning) 05:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant international coverage (e.g. two Israeli sources: [16][17]). But more to the point: has anyone actually read WP:NOTNEWS? Nothing there actually supports deletion: there's no original reporting, no "who's who", no diary, and the article is not in news-report style. Rami R 05:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Holy crap this is a lot of comments, and it's still day one. I was originally going to go with a merge, but given that it's too early for a determination and it may keep growing (lawsuits, etc.), I think it does warrant its own article for now, if not for good. ansh 666 05:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yesterday I would've said delete as this appeared to be nothing more than a social media meme. But this is appearing to be a watershed moment in costumer service in general. There are multiple reliable sources going in-depth into the systemic institutional dysfunctions of United and other companies that allow such PR disasters such as this. And an incident that causes almost a $1 billon market cap drop? Wow. --Oakshade (talk) 05:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. Or drag me kicking and screaming back to AfD in 6 months. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no need to "re-accommodate" this article because it is our policy that "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover". The policy continues, "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events". The topic is already highly notable, having many significant and independent sources. Such notability does not expire and so is only going to grow. Andrew D. (talk) 07:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. As other have said there is absolutely no need for haste. If in a month or two the share prices recover, the controversy dies down, people forget about this and no changes are made then this would be worthy of deletion, for now it does not seem that way. I would note that unlike many other airline controversies this has created public interest in a change of procedure, even if it doesn't actually lead to such it will still be somewhat noteworthy because of that fact. 176.26.30.132 (talk) 09:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This story has gathered momentum since the AfD nom, and merits a separate article, at least for now. We can evaluate its longer-term significance in due course. Edwardx (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – This incident has been commented upon by multiple parts of the US government, including the White House and Congress. The incident also has an impact on international relations between the US and multiple Asian countries. The "popular culture"-section, while basically inappropriate, shows that the event is being discussed in creative works. I definitely believe the story has gone past the point where WP:NOTNEWS is relevant. ~Mable (chat) 10:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - I would say the growing furor and the global impact of this incident make it obvious this article is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. The overwhelming trend is keep, so let's end this and focus on the article and related articles. Jus da fax 12:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Wiki not a newspaper, SUSTAINED, RECENTISM, OSHWAH L3X1 (distant write) 12:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

70-16, no including merge votes. I hope the closing admin recently finished memorising WP, or we will be back here in a few months…L3X1 (distant write) 12:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As mentioned by others, WP:NOTNEWS states "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." (emphasis mine). Presumably, a significant current event is one that meets the WP:EVENT tests; and WP:SUSTAINED defers to WP:EVENT inclusion criteria. User:Mailer_diablo has shown above how this event meets those criteria - even more so now than when they first commented. WP:RECENTISM is not a policy, and so WP:EVENT should take precedence. Finally, the reason this AfD is so fluid is that the initial nomination was made contrary to WP:RAPID. Instead of waiting "a few days" as suggested, the nomination was made two and a half hours after the page was created. inks ^talk 13:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a major international news story, probably costing the company a nine figure sum in losses. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Some obvious and legitimate WP:RECENTISM concerns here, but at this point, this story has met pretty much any notability guideline we have. NickCT (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since this incident will probably lead to significant changes in policy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID. There are 5 criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (events) and this already meets / could meet all 5 of them. We already have WP:DEPTH, WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:DIVERSE. I advise waiting to see whether or not this has lasting effects. No deletion for now.VR _talk 14:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This story just keeps getting bigger, both in the U.S. and China, and it is clear by now that the story has legs and is not going away. Nsk92 (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as set out in WP:RAPID. The story certainly has a good chance of meeting Wikipedia:Notability_(events) so we should keep for now at least Danofkent (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)danofkent[reply]
Keep Seems to me to meet WP:NEVENT as "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Lots of coverage depth, continuing over days, story has legs in many places. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems important. Air travel has sunk to unprecedentedly low levels, with this incident illustrative of how bad it is. Passengers are treated really badly by air carriers, of course with exceptions. Bus stop (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this is a topic of concern globally and is an international issue. Corresponding language articles in Cantonese Wikipedia, Chinese Wikipedia, and Korean Wikipedia. Discussed by the White House Press Secretary. Sourced and notable information in the article itself includes: Investigated by the United States Department of Transportation. Governor of New Jersey asked United States Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao to suspend allowing airlines to overbook passengers. United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation joined together in a bipartisan letter to the CEO. Twenty one members of the United States Senate also wrote to the CEO. Congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton called for hearings in the United States House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Senators Robert Menendez and Chris Van Hollen called for an investigation. Chicago City Council’s Aviation Committee will hold hearings starting April 13 to investigate the incident. Impacted popular culture debate and parodied by comedians Jimmy Kimmel, Conan O'Brien and Ellen DeGeneres. Emirates launched an advertising campaign that parodies United Airline's slogan and Muñoz's previous statements about airlines in the Middle East. Royal Jordanian has also tweeted that “dragging is strictly prohibited.” This is more than the event itself. This has risen to a global, pervasive, international response which triggered multiple invesigations at the local, state, and federal levels of government. This topic is notable, it satisfies WP:NOTE in multiple languages from multiple different countries, and it deserves to remain its own independent article. It should not be deleted. It should not be merged. It should remain its own separate article. It should continue to be expanded and improved. Sagecandor (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per, effectively, All of the above- the topic has gone from being merely being a 'news' item to a national incident with, it seems, additional international implications. Obviously, many news items are notable by our standards, and this is clearly one of them. — O Fortuna^{velut luna} 15:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This subject is clearly notable because of the widespread coverage and discussion worldwide, judging from the number and types of sources covering it.--Beneficii (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Despite the vigorous debate at hand, the article for David Dao was deleted without keeping the history in tact. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge into a proposed Involuntary deboarding article - or at least a section on Overbooking. The incident is currently mentioned in:
1. Contract_of_carriage#Involuntary_deboarding, as well as
2. Overselling#Involuntary_deboarding
I deplore the overlap, and I would like to see some consolidation. This is not an isolated problem, even if it's an extreme example. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:53, 12 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 Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of most K-pop viewed videos on Youtube

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

WP:OR Cabayi (talk) 09:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my comment on the author's talk page: With regards to your Top 75 K-Pop list, I was wondering which source you use to create this list and if there are any references outlining your claim that manipulated videos are excluded. What evidence is there and are there any sources or statements from Youtube? The ranking looks a lot like a Youtube user created playlist which may not meet standards as reliable source (WP:RELIABLE). To avoid concerns as original research (WP:OR), we would be looking for verifiable third party sources to ensure the list is complete and does not arbitrarily exclude certain videos. Going forward, what are your plans to update this list as time progresses, to void the list becoming a moment-in-time snapshot with diminishing relevance over time? Jake Brockman (talk) 09:18, 12 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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aero Ltd.

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

No reason this meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Minor company that made few minor flying contraptions, no references to speak of, except few obscure mentions in niche flying enthusiast works. Leaving aside notability of its products, notability is not inherited, so this entry has to stand on its own. And it clearly fails at that. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not really less notable than others in Category:Aircraft manufacturers of Poland. Your terminology of "few minor flying contraptions" isn't neutral. They make VLA/LSA certified aircraft, more notable than paragliders manufacturers in my opinion. They exposed in AERO Friedrichshafen 2016. Small company, but that's the typical VLA manufacturer size. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have expanded the article and added three independent third party refs. It now meets notability requirements. In future it would be better to bring these sorts of issues up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft so that they can be fixed rather than wasting time on AfDs. - Ahunt (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a sourced company that has produced any aircraft that has flown is normally considered notable enough for an article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a properly sourced stub article about a manufacturer of certified aircraft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability and is a viable stub. Samf4u (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would re-name to Aero sp. z o.o. as per legal name. Ltd ending is not a valid/legal trading name. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 21:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The company website uses "Aero AT" as its full name, so I was planning on moving the article to that title once the AfD was closed, which could be soon if it keeps "snowing" here. - BilCat (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good idea. - Ahunt (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:46, 18 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chongyuan Temple

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

Deprodded without rationale, and with the addition a single primary reference. Article currently has no references from independent, reliable sources. No indication of notability. Searches turned up 3 brief mentions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sorry for no rationale, it appeared as an obvious keep to me. I've gone and added a couple more references to fill it out. I'm not sure what the "3 mentions" are, but I pulled up many English-language references and 100s of Chinese-language references after a quick search. --NoGhost (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Obvious keep from me too. One of the major sites of Suzhou. References in the article demonstrate passing notability guidelines. The nom should be aware that WP:AFD only requires the existence of sources, not that they already be in the article. Frequently with Chinese names, there are multiple alternate Latin character spellings. With this subject there is at least "Zhongyuan Temple" (as indicated on Google Maps) and "Chongyuan Temple" as well as the simplified Chinese "重元寺" all of which bring up much more than three "brief mention" search results. --Oakshade (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 08:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the place is covered in multiple sources and is well clear of the GNG. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How on God's earth could this historic temple, rebuilt or not, ever be subject to an AfD? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if it's worth piling on but, even ignoring its history and treating this as a modern work of architecture, there's a statue the height of Christ the Redeemer within the building. Have also added stuff to article. Fuebaey (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Piling on. --do ncr am 14:59, 16 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Celestial Sanctum Parish

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

Deprodded, although editor agreed with the lack of notability. A local church, searches turned up zero to indicate notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 08:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable with no claims to notability. Ifnord (talk) 16:29, 13 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) f e minist 04:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the Loop with iVillage

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

Non-notable minor television series; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Only coverage are mere mentions or press release summaries/cancelation notices, not significant coverage. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 27 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) 18:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to iVillage#Television show Aired for two years nationally on a limited number of stations; a failure that pretty much did in iVillage, but it was so generic it might as well be titled Orlando Set Talk Show. Limited content here will be moved to that section in the iVillage article. Nate • (chatter) 18:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep this seems to be a television show with WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The only sources I can find are press releases and postings from the show itself (not independent of subject, obviously) and cancelation notices. Those aren't sufficient to meet GNG. If you have found significant coverage, please share thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 08:08, 12 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 keep. (non-admin closure) f e minist 04:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization (AIRR) Act

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

An unpassed U.S. bill. Not a law: a bill. Sources that basically say "Look, here's a bill" or "Look, here's a bill and here's what might happen if it passed. WP:CRYSTAL applies. Calton | Talk 11:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work here. I know you are trying to improve the encyclopedia, as am I. However, I respectfully disagree.

Per the Wikipedia guideline for Notability: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." Source: WP:N.

Per the Notability guidelines:

"A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

* It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and

* It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy." Source: WP:N.

The article passes Wikipedia's test for new articles, which can be found at the same page I've sourced above or specifically the section on that page which can be found at WP:GNG.

Here are the itemized requirements found at WP:GNG which is listed at WP:N:

* The article has significant coverage. While it only needs one source of significant coverage, it has several. Please view the list of references on the article you've proposed deleting. Among the references are Forbes, Fortune, the Wall Street Journal, the Competitive Enterprise Institute think tank, The Hill, and The New York Times.

* Reliable sources. I would argue pretty easily that the above-mentioned resources are reliable and meet "editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline".

* Secondary sources. The sources listed above are secondary, not primary.

* "Independent of the subject." The bill and bill's authors did not write the news articles used as references listed above; thus the references are independent of the subject.

The article is written in the past tense modal, (i.e. the bill "would have" done x, y z) because the congressional session in which the bill was introduced has concluded. The verb tense should not be confused as a "crystal ball". It makes no predictions of the future.

Additionally, it's worth noting that dozens of legislative articles exist for bills that were not signed into law. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposed_legislation_of_the_114th_United_States_Congress and see similar categories for other Congresses. There are probably hundreds of unpassed bills that are standing articles in Wikipedia.

--Michael Powerhouse (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the excellent and complete reasoning given by Michael Powerhouse. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strange new meaning of "excellent" I was previously unaware of, since it's mostly irrelevant to the deletion reasoning. And cutting-and-pasting irrelevant policy/guideline text doesn't really impress me. --Calton | Talk 03:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 08:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasons listed above for keeping. If there is plenty of WP:RS and coverage, it is notable. Simple as that. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Routine news reports" =/= "actual impact", so no, not as simple as that. --Calton | Talk 03:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...article is written in the past tense modal. Meaning that this proposal is a) past; i.e., dead; and b) did not actually have any impact. Meaning it's not only WP:CRYSTAL, it's a dead' WP:CRYSTAL. --Calton | Talk 03:49, 13 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Giraud

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

Seems to be a pretty non-notable fashion designer, finding barely any sources that aren't user-created or social media/networking related. Mabalu (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 08:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no notability per WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO as a fashion designer or figure skater. The sole reference in the article is her LinkedIn page. Seven external links; four of which are links to her company or social media, one is a directory listing at a trade show, one is an interview and the last is an article about a fashion show that doesn't seem to mention her or her company. Does also read slightly promotional in tone. Fuebaey (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and nothing shows she's notable as a figure skater or fashion designer. Papaursa (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:18, 19 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Sibbald

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 07:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20-Mule-Team Delete: Backup goalie with an ephemeral career in the semi-pros. Overwhelming failure of NHOCKEY and no evidence this meets the GNG; even by Dolovis' "standards," this a bit outrageous, and the only excuse I can think of is he was hoping no one would ever notice. Ravenswing 12:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its the awards. He was on a streak for awhile creating articles for anyone who won an award because at one point any award from any minor league worked for NHOCKEY. This was one of the many Dolovis loop holes we closed. -DJSasso (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another Dolovis creation for an SPHL All-Star with no other notability or secondary coverage. Yosemiter (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 19 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kristara Barrington

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

Fails pornbio and being an incidental target in a wider investigation on underage porn doesnt make you notable, if all we have is an interview and that than the article is hopelessly and unfixably flawed, fails pornbio and gng and even if it passed would be Blp1e Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No actual claim of notability. Passing mention in news coverage of broader event does not itself establish notability, and makes no more than a minor contribution to it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nominator has consistently shown a poor understanding of WP:BLP1E. The San Diego Tribune article sourced is a year prior to the traci lords controversy. In addition to those two newspaper articles, Barrington is discussed in the Yale Journal of Law and Feminism[[18]]. She passes the general notability guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I reviewed the linked source, and the coverage of Barrington is rather shallow. Her name mostly appears in footnotes, while the discussion is more focused on the movies she appeared in, rather than on her biography. The article also states that she was "less known" than two other stars, so I don't see a strong claim of significance here. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails our guidelines for pronographic actresses and no other claim to notability exists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:30, 20 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Biaggi

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

Nominations only so fails pornbio and clearly fails the gng Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:PORNBIO with only nominations. Fails to reach GNG threshold. Finnegas (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards. No nontrivial reliable sourcing, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with regrets. He's "bigger" yet not a big star, in his own admission on his blog. Bearian (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable pornographic actor.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:20, 19 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boxer (2017 film)

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

Unsourced WP:CRYSTAL Cabayi (talk) 06:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 06:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (if only there were a CSD criterion for film). I've lost count of the number of film articles I've run across that deserve speedy deletion. There is nothing here qualifying for WP:NFILM criteria, way WP:TOOSOON. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:37, 12 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 keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Wade

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

Per WP:NCORP. Only sources located were primary and one PR source. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 04:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AFD fails wp:BEFORE. Per WP:NCORP.

Added New York Times article about Garrett Wade http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/22/garden/where-to-find-it-tools-for-carvers-and-cabinetmakers.html
Added link to Lie Nielsen Wikipedia page, which is the original source that links to the Garrett Wade page Lie Nielsen Toolworks.
Added Lee Valley customer letter talking about their early relationship with Garrett Wade: http://www.leevalley.com/us/home/page.aspx?p=46993&cat=60655,46992.
Added product development sentence with references to tools developed in-house. Philip Murphy User talk:Philip_Murphy 04:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NCORP. Added reference to NY Times article Helpful Hardware - Tools that Measure (http://www.nytimes.com/1981/03/12/garden/helpful-hardware-tools-that-measure-by-barbara-l-eisenberg-and-mary-smith.html)
Philip Murphy User talk:Philip_Murphy

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NCORP. I've added more sources to address original AFD nomination. I welcome edits to the page as I am new to this. I respectfully object to deletion as I've added sources including multiple NYT articles and Garrett Wade is iconic in the woodworking and mail order/catalog industries. Philip Murphy User talk:Philip_Murphy

Keep - The NY Times article is a very good one for establishing notability. Others, like Lee Valley and Lie-Nielsen aren't what would be considered reliable sources for the purpose of establishing notability. However, coverage about their catalog in Popular Mechanics, and coverage about them in a book about social media do establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article with the sources above from Whpq User talk:Whpq. Thanks! Philip Murphy User talk:Philip_Murphy

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 23:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The company has multiple New York Times articles covering them here, here, and here. They have coverage about their catalog in Popular Mechanics. They also have coverage in a book about social media.Philip Murphy (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: When I created my profile, I listed my job as "Marketing Manager at Garrett Wade. It still reflects that. I do receive a yearly salary from Garrett Wade. Per recommendation from Whpq I am explicitly disclosing COI here and will refrain from making future edits unless explicitly asked to do so by admins. Thank you for your help with rules. I thought I was in compliance. I respect Wikipedia and do not want to break the rules.Philip Murphy (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article at this point isn't at all promotional, so there's no issue with it looking like advertising. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to pass NCORP L3X1 (distant write) 16:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NCORP. The multiple NY times definately establish notability --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:50, 26 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. Despite arguments to the contrary from what appear to be WP:SPAs, this topic doesn't meet WP:GNG at this time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bhangarh: The Last Episode

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM: No coverage in reliable sources and no evidence to support notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added fresh notability from Bollywood Hungama, an independent and reliable source. WP:NFSOURCES, WP:NFILM and WP:GNG are taken care of. -Amavaskiraat (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Amavaskiraat: I don't think just one source is enough to support notability and as per the source the film was released on 30th March but not received any reviews which is very uncommon for notable films. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS-1987: Hi, this is not the only reference. We have Radio Mirchi, wynk and hungama also in the references which are all independent and reliable. I checked for your review concern, and found that the film was released on 30th March digitally across the platforms, thus formal reviews are yet not available. Though I agree that we need more references, I think we have enough sources for the article to LIVE with the template WP:TM. Amavaskiraat (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Mirchi and wynk are not reliable to support notability and yes the article need more reliable sources which address the topic directly and in details. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG criteria for WP:Notability and cant possibly satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (films) because it is an advertisement for a trailer of an upcomming film. I originally tagged the article and went to the talk page regarding issues. The more I thought about it, the more I realized there is just no notability for a trailer advertising a future film release. From the talk page: "This article is about a trailer, for a yet to be released film, and not the film itself. This means that it is promotional advertisement for a film with an unknown release date which is a future event. Other issues are the puffed up wording in the lead, "one of most haunted locations of India" that gets promoted to "the world’s most haunted location, Bhangarh". This is certainly dubious speculation, and even if there were multiple reliable sources, the wording would be subjective. Without attribution it is original research.
- notability: There are six references. 3 references are from the same "Hungama, Bollywood" source (counts as one towards notability and the last one is a dead link), radiomirchi.com is an audio review which is advertisement, YouTube (Dark Moon - Horror Channel) is about the trailer, and "Wynk Music" is about the three songs supposedly on the film, and I didn't look at reference reliability. The title of the article is Bhangarh: The Last Episode, not Bhangarh: The Last Episode trailer. Otr500 (talk) 08:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. The article was created from a neutral point of view from the sources available at that time. The pillar of WP:5P2 was justified. Out of the sources now present with the article Bollywood Hungama and Wyunk are totally reliable sources. Wynk is a platform of Airtel, which is independent and so the Bollywood Hungama. The article in reference says that the film is released digitally. I have checked all over and found full movie available on many platforms. It seems to me an independent film not with the backing of big studios, which may be the reason for only a few sources available. Also I have read several articles on wikipedia where the notability is a concern or not so many reliable sources are attached with the article. But those article exists and thus gives chance to our readers to access information related to them. Having a fewer notable sources attached should not be the criteria for deleting an article altogether. One of our five pillar is WP:5P5, this article deserves to exists with the template WP:TM. Amavaskiraat (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Amavaskiraat (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

You can't vote twice, so I struck the keep here. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is not about a yet to release film. The sources says the film was released on 30th march'2017 digitally, links for full movie are available. puffed up wording needs the warning for citation, which is already there (Though an editor has added some notability for it now). As for as the number of sources are concerned WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV clearly says "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage".Aniltheultimate (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Aniltheultimate: Again you can't vote more than once. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete--Per nom.Winged Blades^Godric 15:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS-1987: you seems to be in a big hurry to delete the article. This is my first vote. Aniltheultimate (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aniltheultimate: I have strucked my comment and for your vote please read the above comment by Otr500 which I think is a good explanation on why this article should be deleted. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 09:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see enough reasons to completely kill the article. Vikasthefalcon (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC) — Vikasthefalcon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Vikasthefalcon: The reason is very clear as it fails to pass our notability criteria and since its your 7th edit so far please read our general notability guideline and WP:NFILM to know why I nominate this article for deletion. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 07:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS-1987: Yes I have checked WP:GNG and WP:NFILM and I am totally agree with Aniltheultimate that "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage". Also I don't understand on what basis it is being speculated in the discussion that source related to Radiomirch.com is an ADVERTISEMENT and sources related to Bollywood Hungama and Hungama.com are SAME (both are different platforms, the first one deals in entertainment and later one deals in digital music and both are operated by different editors and teams). Also why source related to Wynk.com are not considered for altogether, It is the digital music platform of Airtel and totally reliable. Thank and Regards. Vikasthefalcon (talk) 15:21, 19 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 deleted per WP:G12. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Young Thunder

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

Autobiography of an up-and-coming rapper, written by the subject. We don't have articles on up-and-coming musicians, they must have already arrived according to WP:MUSICBIO. The sources provided don't have significant coverage; the interview counts as a primary source. I can't verify reference 2 because I get a malware warning on that site. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:13, 12 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 no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per no participation herein other than from the nominator.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christobelle Grierson-Ryrie

AfDs for this article:

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

Still is not notable (limited sources) after a few years... Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 12 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. Consensus is that coverage of the group has not been sufficient to establish notability. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sons of Thundr (Faith Baptist Church)

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

Alleged to be a db-corp article, but there is history here and the article has some references (albeit iffy in quality). Listing for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Other than a couple of news stories and the 5 year old SPLC listing, there is nothing notable about this defunct organization. – S. Rich (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GNG is met, NTEMP, etc., although it certainly could use updating. Jclemens (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article cites eight secondary sources. Additional available sources include one book, two magazine articles, and several newspaper articles. The article has been viewed by about nine readers per day for the last year.- Mr X 12:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There are 11 reference links provided: 1 is dead, 4 are SoT, 1 is SPLC, 1 is UPI, 3 are local news articles, 1 is gay advocacy which appears to rely on the SPLC. Total: 6 secondary sources. – S. Rich (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Not a run-of-the-mill church. St Anselm (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC) Delete. The more I look at it, the more I see a WP:COATRACK article here. The "Sons of Thundr" are not a church, but an organization based at a church. It was the organisation that was listed by SPLC (though that in itself doesn't make it notable). So we have a church, a pastor, and an organisation - all of whose notability is borderline. I don't think we can put them all together and say that they add up to being notable. St Anselm (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It appears to be a NN local church, which has become the subject of an ATTACK ARTICLE. If kept, it should be renamed Faith Baptist Church, Primrose. I do not believe the spelling currently used in the name, which is properly a reference to two of Jesus' apostles. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sufficient media coverage to warrant an entire article. Even the founder isn't notable enough to be on Wikipedia. This entire article could be a one sentence line in another article, maybe in Christian fundamentalism#In North America. "The Faith Baptist Church of Georgia is an example of a fundamentalist organization that espouses hate speech."Timtempleton (talk) 00:02, 22 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Tofu

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In a notable magazine related to their field. Multiple sources from decent sources. Several awards. Cold Tofu has plenty of search results.[19] They give back to the community (Won this award: "Excellence in Community Service Award" - Asian Professional Exchange (APEX) (2014)Knox490 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above. Fatty wawa (talk) 04:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG L3X1 (distant write) 21:31, 16 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old Belize Museum and Cucumber Beach

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

fails WP:GNG. applying WP:BEFORE a thorough search for sources found no significant coverage. Those arguing for keep must demonstrate existence of significant coverage LibStar (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It can be developed in some form, perhaps with development of coverage at a corresponding list-article then merger/redirect for a while. I removed PROD at article and tried to open discussion at Talk:Old Belize Museum and Cucumber Beach#notability and development, but the deletion nominator opens this AFD instead. This AFD and some others like it rub me the wrong way, it feels like AFD being used for coercion, and I am not really happy about trying to actually find usable sources and develop. I guess wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP doesn't describe the issue; the goal is just to tear down, while coercing unfortunate other editors to go along? Seems like there is no shared value of developing Wikipedia coverage of notable topics anyhow. --do ncr am 05:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this is not a clean up. it is not notable for lack of coverage and fails WP:GNG. I am not really happy about trying to actually find usable sources . the onus is on keep voters to find sources. this is how AfD works. if you're not happy with that...then please read WP:AFD carefully. LibStar (talk) 06:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the only source you've actually found is the lonely planet guide . If that's the best you can found than the case for notability is very weak. LibStar (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability. Strange and confusing title. Fatty wawa (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only sources I could find through a variety of gSearches were the website of the facility and one Lonely Planet website review in passing. These do not quality as reliable sources. Therefore, the article fails general notability guidelines. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG L3X1 (distant write) 21:30, 16 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 keep. (non-admin closure) L3X1 (distant write) 02:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden International Improv Festival

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

Non notable "festival" is onyl 2 years old, 2 mentions in English press. L3X1 (distant write) 01:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but endeavor to expand and provide enough notable sources. Knox490 (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. Fatty wawa (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sources don't have to be in English, but have added an Australian source and an Uppsala source too. Appears notable. PamD 15:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the references in the article and in Google News archive, there are sufficient third party sources for notability. gidonb (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NomCom If no good delete votes are produced (Fatty wawa's looks to me like a me-too vote) in 48 hours, I'll withdraw and NAC as snowkeep. L3X1 (distant write) 23:32, 15 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 WWE Superstar Shake-up

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

Non-notable event. Predominately relies on primary sources. There does not appear to be a breath of coverage as justified at: Wikipedia:Notability (events) Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Every other "draft" the company has had has an article. What makes this different? More sources will come. Give it a little time to build up before jumping on the delete button. --JDC808 ♫ 01:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know about that. Doesn't change my point. You're jumping on this way too early. --JDC808 ♫ 01:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Come on now. Lets not get silly. This is a significant event in the world of pro wrestling and definitely shouldn't gey deleted. --ZSJUSA 01:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for 120 days and then reevaluate. Knox490 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As I see, you also nominated to delete the article about WWE Draft 2016. Every draft has own article, especially 2008-2010 as featured articles. It's a notable event, changes storylines played on TV and others. --Wybielacz (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over that keep/delete discussion, almost all the points to keep for that article can be applied here. --JDC808 ♫ 02:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's last year all over again. It has significant coverage (The AV Club, FOX Sports, CBS Sports, Daily Mirror etc.). Failure to perform WP:BEFORE. Nickag989^talk 07:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral note Please note AfD rationales are keep, delete, redirect and merge, not oppose/unoppose; please keep this in mind and change your rationales for proper tracking by admins and bots. Nate • (chatter) 09:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a major promotion [WWE] that's having a draft, which makes it significantly notable. Optimistic Wikipedian (User_talk:Optimistic Wikipedian) 13:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just like every other year's draft article. Nomination is a waste of time just like last year's deletion nomination. Great Dessert (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 21:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The WWE Draft and the WWE Superstar shake-up play a very relevant role in the WWE. It's a tradition of the WWE since the start of the brand extension. Also, as with the other WWE draft articles, it must not be deleted as there might be additional sources (Pro Wrestling Torch, Bleacher Report, Cageside Seats, WhatCulture Wrestling, etc.). Hansen Sebastian 16:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The latter three sources are not reliable per WP:PW/RS, but your statement is solid. Nickag989^talk 16:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reliable source coverage --w^L^{<speak·check>} 03:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I do agree that it was a significant event in WWE History. But I would recommend adding this page as a subpage in WWE draft- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWE_draft — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbirCB (talk • contribs) 16:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And that means that we should do the same thing with 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008 (featured article), 2009 (featured article), 2010 (featured article), 2011, and 2016, right? Well, that's just redundant. Nickag989^talk 18:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - you did the same thing with last year's draft and it was agreed to be kept so why try it again with this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwefan5x (talk • contribs) 02:38, 17 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yukti Kapoor

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

Comment:This article does not meet wikipedia's notability guideline and contain information without any citation that's why I am nominating the article for deletion.ABCDE22 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but needs to be expanded. Better to be expanded than deleted. She is a popular Indian actress. Lots of Google results for her name (and the word actress).[20] She was also cited by International Business Times in the Wikipedia article. In several movies and television shows.Knox490 (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now Looks like her career could take off as of March 2017, based upon her new TV role. If notability is lacking during and after this production then Delete. Fatty wawa (talk) 04:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ABCDE22 Can you please elaborate on which policies you think she flunks? L3X1 (distant write) 21:32, 16 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 keep. (non-admin closure) f e minist 05:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of AR platform calibers

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

The list does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists. It is virtually unsourced. It amounts to original research. It has been tagged for many months without any improvements. Felsic2 (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources;" articles surveying alternative calibers for the AR-15 platform are a mainstay of gun mags, e.g.:

http://www.gunsandammo.com/tactical/best-ar-15-cartridges-right-now/

http://www.outdoorhub.com/how-to/2017/03/20/ar-15-deer-hunting-cartridges-magnificent-7/

http://www.alloutdoor.com/2015/12/15/variant-chamberings-ar-platform/

http://www.tactical-life.com/gear/beyond-223-alternative-cartridges-ar-platform-roundup/

The article's poor formatting and lack of citations are not valid reasons to delete it; WP:ATD "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." TiC ^(talk) 13:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ATD above Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:52, 16 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 no consensus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Carr (activist)

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

Improperly sourced WP:BLP of a writer and activist. There's definitely a valid potential claim of notability here, but there's not enough substance or enough reliable sourcing to get the shot into the net -- as written, this only just barely goes any further than "Robert Carr is a person who exists", and both of its references are to content written by him rather than about him. As always, a writer gets over our inclusion standards by being the subject of media content written by other people, not by being the bylined author of media content about other things. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can find better sources than I've been able to, but nothing here is good enough as things stand right now. Bearcat (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found an article on the Human Rights Campaign website about Carr's death, Human Rights and HIV Activist Robert Carr Mourned, as well as an article at The Jamaica Observer (here) but the latter ties in with the former. I also found an article about an award in his name. It seems to be a lot easier to find articles about his foundation that the man. Justeditingtoday (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it's also important to recognize that widely regarded activists like Dr. Carr (as seen by his remembrances), who are coming from developing countries like Trinidad and Jamaica where there is little to no social, political, legal, etc. mobilization/support/dialogue on HIV/AIDS and gender identity issues, are not going to have the same size editorial trail as their American and European counterparts. He is in a unique position because he appears to be a pioneer, of sorts, for the Caribbean region, in a relatively recent global movement that is still ongoing. I think the fact that he is cited by the publications and organizations that he is, easily satisfies the notability requirement. I've found the following secondary sources pertaining to Dr. Carr (a few of which have already been mentioned):

°Hon. Barbara Lee in United States House of Representatives (here) °The Atlantic (here) °The Robert Carr Doctrine (here) °amfAR (here) °UNAIDS (here) °[World] (here) °The Global Forum on MSM & HIV (here) °LA Times (here) °ICASO (here) °Human Rights Watch (here) °Pan American Health Organization (here) °UNAIDS Caribbean (here) °The Jamaica Observer (here) °Metropolitan Community Churches (here) °Stabroek News - (here) Channyloulou (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)Channyloulou (talk)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete GS cites of 106, 36, 38, 37, 30, 64, 5, 5, 12 a bit slender for WP:Prof#C1. Above claim that that allegedly under represented communities should be subjected to lower standards of notability has been dismissed WP:Notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I don't think it should be held to lower standards, thus my citations and ongoing additions to the page that continue to satisfy notability. I mentioned it because I think it's an important perspective to consider. Channyloulou (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Channyloulou[reply]

The core issue is that because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, we are unable to guarantee that every possible "anybody" is always editing with good intentions. Our articles are quite regularly dirtwashed with poorly sourced criticisms or POV epithets or insider gossip about their personal lives, or even have outright false information added — and reliable source coverage is the only defense we have against any of those things. So as unfortunate as it is that some groups of people may not have gotten the depth of coverage they deserved, we can't waive our sourcing requirements just because an article subject happens to be part of an underrepresented group — because many of those same underrepresented groups are also the most vulnerable to attack editing (e.g. attempts to "reveal" the unpublicized former name of a transgender person, attempts by homophobes to smear notable people who are gay or lesbian, etc.) A Wikipedia article is a double-edged sword which can have negative consequences for the subject, so our includability standards have to keep an eye on protecting people from that harm — namely by not keeping an article at all if they're not the subject of enough reliable source coverage to support it. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now I think he has shown a bit of notability and more time should be given for editors to expand the article. Fatty wawa (talk) 04:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fww. The article has something about that seems off, beside the style, but I can't nail it down. Author is SPA, perhaps a sock of PROMO hub? L3X1 (distant write) 21:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions I think the time to close this discussion and remove the deletion banner at the top of the page has come.Channyloulou (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Channyloulou[reply]

That can only be done by an administrator who has not already participated in the discussion, no earlier than seven full days after the last relist. There's nothing I or you can do to make it happen any faster than that. Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Nom. I've searched, but I can't find much, pretty much just the mentions of him that already source the article. Most troubling is the lack is an obit in a major newspaper, a notable would have had one. And in the four years since the death of a truly notable activist, there would have been mentions of him if he had been notable. Moreover, while he wrote chapters in several non-notable ebooks, he wrote only a single book (2003) and I cannot find that it was reviewed. My JSTOR search on one title "Black Nationalism in the New World" + Carr came up empty. as did a gNews search. Not a single academic or popular review. This is not notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just found a review of one of Dr. Carr's works on JSTOR (here). It took me 5 seconds. I hope that all of these comments claiming lack of notability aren't just automatically accepted as true, but thoroughly verified before being considered as legitimate input with respect to whether this page should or should not remain up.Channyloulou (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Channyloulou[reply]

Note that my comment was about the sole book that he seems to have written. The review you cite is of an edited work containing chapters by many authors. Carr is the third of tree editors, not the author. The review does contain a favorable comment about the chapter in the book that he wrote. The journal in which the review is published, Social and Economic Studies published by the University of the West Indies, however, is not a leading scholarly journal, but even if it were, a single review of a collection of scholarly essays of which one is third editor adds very little to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, all academics publish, mostly they publish non-notable articles in non-notable journals and non-notable books. For a scholar to claim notability as a scholar, the published work has to be notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As pointed out above, efforts in the third world are not going to get as much media coverage, but I'm basing my vote more on his published scholarly output, and that there's an award established to keep his legacy alive. Timtempleton (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on publication history and for the other reasons mentioned above. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - (or Draft) as nom indicated, this article has potential, just not in it's current state and I see that in order to quickly add more content to sustain it, we may've skimmed over copyright violations as well - full report available here. Needs massive copyedit too as it mostly has copy-pasted content in quotes; although the original sources do not present as such. TopCipher (talk) 15:05, 22 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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New 94.3 FM Kentville, Nova Scotia

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

A yet-to-launch radio station which does not even have a proposed callsign and launch date yet. Per WP:NRADIO, such stations generally are not considered notable yet. While I did find a few local hits about the proposed station, they do not appear to be enough to establish notability per WP:GNG. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Although the station is going to be launched by a reputable broadcaster, Newcap Radio, IMO it is not notable yet. Patience. Regards, Aloha27 talk 02:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but super open to reevaluating once they launch and have a chance to show notability. Knox490 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No calls, no license, no article. Also, Newcap was told a year ago by the CRTC that the market can't support this new station and I doubt that's changed, so it's not coming in the near future anyways. Nate • (chatter) 03:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The station never went to air — because, as previously noted, the CRTC rejected the application because it doesn't think the market can support a new station. (Indeed, it appears the CRTC will not seriously consider any future applications for new stations in Kentville before 2018.) There is, of course, no presumed notability for unlaunched stations (and when a station does launch, we do need sources to verify operation — but that's not happening for this station, since it wasn't even approved); it seems unlikely that this and other unlaunched stations can ever meet the general notability guideline, even with any local coverage the station managed to receive when it was applied for. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't know if this was a good faith error by a user who saw the application but missed the denial or a deliberate attempt to hoaxify an application the creator already knew was failed, but the above comments are indeed correct: Newcap did submit an application to launch the station described here, but part of the CRTC's licensing process is to do an economic evaluation of whether the market can support a new station before it even gives the application a hearing — and as correctly noted above, they did reject this application on the grounds that Kentville was not able to support a new station at this time. While certainly it's possible that Newcap may try again in the future, (a) that won't be for at least another year, (b) Kentville isn't really growing fast enough that the CRTC findings in the market capacity phase of the process would be likely to be different in 2018 than then were in 2016, and (c) even if they do decide to proceed with hearings next time, a radio station doesn't get an article on here until it's actually on the air — merely having an application in the approval pipeline, or even approved but not yet launched, is not in and of itself enough. (Also, just for the record, I've listed the creator for an SPI check because this puts me just a little bit too much in mind of another editor with a problematic edit history pertaining to radio stations in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.) Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 12 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 and redirect to Winters v. United States. Sandstein 05:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous rights to land along rivers

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

Personal essay/term paper-like content/content forking from places where relevant text should go, namely indigenous land rights or aboriginal title. As one might expect from an essay, it is a synthesis of other sources to make a point (i.e., original research).

As an alternative to outright deletion, I initially suggested a redirect to another page. This has been reverted without comment or discussion by the editor, who is a student creating this as part of a very sloppily organized class project. There is nothing worthwhile to merge (the article is compromised almost entirely of unsourced statements, statements cited only to Wikipedia itself, or statements not supported by the cited source) so deletion is appropriate here. Neutrality^talk 01:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some content, but not necessarily article (needs rewrite) If article is not kept, copy and paste some material to another article with some rewrite. Knox490 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Riparian rights is a well established area of law, and I have no doubt it is complicated by the complex relationships of the U.S. government to Native American tribal law (see Indian_Country_Jurisdiction). This article is typical of our legal articles, which often have NO or few sources (but may include well written portions by an expert in the field): e.g. Licensee,Condominium, Bundle of rights, Petit jury, Implied-in-fact contract, Mortgage law#Equitable_mortgage, Concurrent estate, Accord and satisfaction,consideration, Pacta sunt servanda. Unfortunately, there are not enough editors with expertise in law interested in addressing the problems of proper referencing. Deleting all of our legal articles that have this problem is probably not the best solution. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is proposing "deleting all of our legal articles." This article is basically a rambling essay that discusses matters that have nothing to do with water rights. And in any case the articles that discusses tribal reserved water rights is Winters rights. Neutrality^talk 03:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutrality: Sorry. I should have read the initial post more carefully. I didn't realize you were the one who posted this. I mistakenly thought this was like the post trying to delete Enterprise law by an editor who knew nothing about that area of law and did not know about the shabby state of our legal articles--I know you do. Wrong audience. Yeah, I can go along with what you are saying, if the subject is properly handled in Winters rights. I will change my vote accordingly. You are right, it does look like an essay. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy essay. Redirect page to Winters rights. Merge anything that can be easily be saved. Changed vote per above discussion. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TNT and redirect to Winters rights Statements like "His administration does not respect environmental justice or indigenous rights." and "The history of displacement of Native Americans is one of the biggest genocide histories" and citing to Wikipedia Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OFFTOPIC - has nothing to do with whether this article should exist under WP's policies and guidelines

Please do not delete or redirect this page: Hello all, This project is being done for a grade in a semester course and to have all of that suddenly disappear is very disconcerting. I hope you understand we are students and if we had to redo the work we have done it would be extremely time consuming and we would suffer from that. The content of the page is a discussion of the land and water rights to set a stage to discuss our Environmental Justice case studies/subsections on Shasta, North Dakota, Colorado and the Klamath. We can link this page to the land rights page as well as the other relevant wiki pages that were already linked. Additionally, we have not finalized the project yet and will continue to edit the content for neutrality and overall cohesiveness. If it is still concerning and you think the page still needs to be redirected please let us know so that we can make sure the content is not lost.Drgood13 (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Drgood13[reply]

@Drgood13: What's your deadline and when will the final assessment of your work be made? I suggest you *request* that it be userfied. You can also copy all the Wiki-code to a user page that is a subpage of your talk page. If you want to know how to do that, please ask--very easy. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, Drgood13, I think you've been shortchanged by your instructor and your university. You should protest your shabby treatment. St Anselm (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm: On what basis do you make the claim that the instructor or the university has done anything wrong? Remember to WP:AGF. There are any number of reasons for problems. One problem could be experienced Wikipedian editors who are not encouraging and helping students, but instead biting them for trying to learn how to edit here. Perhaps, the instructor might not have warned students that Wikipedia can be a snake pit of incivility. Is that really the instructor or University's fault?

That said, I do wonder if students are reading the guide provided in these courses. Careful attention to that guide might have avoided the problems that have led to some of these WP:AfD. If the students are not reading and following the guide, is that entirely the instructor or University's fault? Perhaps we could provide more guidance to these students and not be so judgmental of them. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis, for example, of the POV course description (whose blatant BLP violations have now been removed). UCB can teach whatever they want, of course, but the instructor should have realised that his approach was at odds with Wikipedia's. Grading a student on the basis of an assignment that has a high possibility of getting deleted is also poor educational practice. St Anselm (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm: I doubt the instructor would have anticipated the articles would end up here and that the hard work of the students would be treated with such disdain. It seems to me the problem comes from our end of making Wikipedia sound more welcoming than it actually is. Please look over the guide and show me the warnings in it that this would happen when you write on a controversial subjects or the problems with WP:BLP. I did not see them. It's written for scientists dealing with non-controversial subjects. I have looked over some of these courses and I don't see how the instructor did anything substantially different from the other courses, except that the topic of study is political. I would be curious to hear from the instructor, EJustice on whether my assessment of the issues is accurate. I would be happy to take this discussion to a more appropriate place--not sure where that would be, possibly the course talk page? --David Tornheim (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim:Hi...I will keep my thoughts here fairly short and incomplete as my students and course have been further targeted as a result of the times (one time actually) I have commented on the broader nature of what's going on here. I hope this comment does not ignite any further fury on the part of their critics. I agree with your assessment that the students' work (upper-division students at one of the world's pre-eminent universities) has been treated with untoward hostility. I could anticipate this because this work does get regularly attacked in the real world. (Check out Rush Limbaugh, 2004.) And we trained the students to stay calm in the face of such attacks and to do their best and, most importantly to rigorously source their statements.

I disagree a bit about the cause of the turmoil. It is a political topic, but more importantly acknowledging issues of race and class challenges many of the known systemic biases within Wikipedia. Many of these topics though are not political, certainly not by the definition of BLP or the discretionary sanction for post-1932 politics. Are the legalities of tribal lands and waterways really about biographies or direct politics? If not, then what might be at play in seeking to eliminate this as a topic for Wikipedia? The students' intention is to neutrally discuss this topic, and they're getting a lot of learning out of this for sure. Environmental justice is an increasingly broad and deep field of study and yes, politics. And almost all environmental issues have social and economic (and therefore justice) dimensions.

But we're working through it and will get good information out where we can! Thanks to all of you for the constructive attention.

EJustice (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right, but the Instructor is responsible for being familiar with WP policy (including, in this case, discretionary sanctions). Yes, it's a political subject, and that's what's causing the POV - because the course is "Enviornmental justice", all environmental topics are seen as justice issues, even when there is no reliable source explicitly making the connection. St Anselm (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim, the deadline is April 24th. How do we *request* it be userfied? Thanks! Drgood13 (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Drgood13[reply]

@Drgood13:Hi...your prof here. Please check the bcourses page for how to proceed! (for everyone else there are really great people guiding our students at WikiEdu and we have 4 TAs on campus...180 students contributing...some mistakes will be made!) --EJustice (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drgood13: How do we *request* it be userfied? Just make an entry here like the all other editors did here and give reasons for your proposed action for this proposed Article for Deletion.

Also, take a look at {{ping}}. The ping didn't work by just putting my name with an ampersand (@); It requires the proper use of that template or one similar. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Winters rights as synthesis, with a slightly plausible search term. Redirects are cheap, anyway. – Train2104 (t • c) 15:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Winters v. United States (the correct name of the article) per the above. St Anselm (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Winters v. United States. In this case userification is not an option as the article is SOAPBOX about the RW with BLP violations, and should not exist anywhere in WP. Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 16 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Duarte

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

WP:BLP of an actress, who has a potentially valid notability claim per WP:NACTOR but lacks the reliable sourcing needed to actually carry it. Her role in Degrassi was not actually significant enough to constitute an NACTOR pass in and of itself -- she appeared as a supporting character in eight episodes of a series that produced almost 400 episodes over the course of its run. So in reality, her notability would actually have to be parked entirely on Hard Rock Medical -- but no reliable source coverage about her performance on that show is being shown. The references here are one article in a community weekly newspaper in her own hometown, a Q&A in a men's magazine, Robin Leach's entertainment gossip blog and a directory entry on tv.com -- so none of this constitutes the depth or quality of sourcing required. An actress does not get an article just because it states a significant role per NACTOR #1 -- she gets an article when it reliably sources that she's gotten significant media coverage for that role, but this doesn't show anything of the sort. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or redirect) - Duarte has worked in a production role in Verona, and has performed in Hard Rock Medical, Degrassi: The Next Generation, Haven, Longmire, Being Erica, Against The Wall and Warehouse 13. If the article cannot be kept, it should, at a minimum, be redirected to one of her latest, or most prominent roles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A person in the film industry — producer, actor, film crew, doesn't matter — is not automatically entitled to an article just because her work exists. She must be the subject of reliable source coverage about her work before her work gets her a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - There are multiple in-depth reliable sources in the article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, there aren't. My nomination statement already explained why exactly zero of the sources in the article count for anything. Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I disagree, but OK. We will leave it to the populous to decide. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our reliable sourcing standards do not accept every possible type of source as equally valid. Blogs and directories do not count as reliable sources at all — while Q&A interviews and community weekly newspapers cannot carry passage of WP:GNG by themselves, but are acceptable only as supplementary referencing for stray facts after the person has already been major-market-dailied and CBCed and Macleansed over GNG. You can "disagree" all you like, but Wikipedia has objective standards for what counts as a reliable source and what doesn't, and the sources you used here just aren't satisfying them. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but open to revisit. Not enough citations from press yet. Knox490 (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Bearcat. Subject lacks sufficient coverage of independent reliable sources reliable sourcing Cllgbksr (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bearcat wrote: "Our reliable sourcing standards do not accept every possible type of source as equally valid. Blogs and directories do not count as reliable sources at all — while Q&A interviews and community weekly newspapers cannot carry passage of WP:GNG by themselves, but are acceptable only as supplementary referencing for stray facts after the person has already been major-market-dailied and CBCed and Macleansed over GNG. You can "disagree" all you like, but Wikipedia has objective standards for what counts as a reliable source and what doesn't, and the sources you used here just aren't satisfying them". I agree that not all citations are created equal. In addition, standards should be as objective as possible. I do think, however, that in developing countries where they do not have a robust press that this creates problems so people deserving of an article are not covered, Dean Esmay (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I meant to work up a draft on Duarte, but never got around to it. But she doesn't clear WP:NACTOR/WP:BASIC, at least not yet... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:50, 18 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 keep. General consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) f e minist 05:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Wheeler

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

This article's subject does not meet the criteria for notability of college athletes: "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage." Eddie Blick (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks indepth coverage to show notability for a college athlete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (blab) 17:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have not yet done a detailed search to determine whether he passes WP:GNG, but a quick search shows that, in 2016, he was selected as a first-team All-American by at least one lesser-known selector (see here) and was also a first-team All-Pac-12 player (see here). A couple quick examples of significant coverage include: (1) this, and (2) this. Cbl62 (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources provided by Cbl62. RCFrance (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, due to article being skimpy/skeletal. He won some notable awards.Knox490 (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62's sources. Also, since he's due to enter the draft this year, he may soon meet WP:GRIDIRON which would for sure put him over the top. ansh 666 17:56, 18 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) 00:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anjali Ameer

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

Subject in this article meets WP:SINGLEEVENT and it also passes WP:TOOSOON as the event is yet to occur (i.e. movie for which the subject is being considered significant is yet to be released) TopCipher (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete acting notability requires multiple significant roles, one role is not enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is being the first transgender actor to take a lead role in an Indian film not a valid case for notability? Spiderone 09:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails to meet notablity requirements Knox490 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:23, 20 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheesy (video game)

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

No reliable sourcing found. Only sources are blank frames in gameplay encyclopedias; reviews consist of unreliable ancient fansites and a non-notable gamer on YouTube. Further searching revealed no reputable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very little results can be found on the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 12 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 keep. A WP:RM discussion may be started if anyone considers the current title inappropriate. (non-admin closure) f e minist 05:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive editing

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

The only place where this is described as a formal technique is in the source by Rude. The description of the technique is not substantively different from editing in general. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, but retitle article to "Substantive writing" which is the more prevalent term. Article is informative, decent length and well-written. If this article is deleted, it will only discourage editor who took the time to write a good article. Wikipedia needs more excellent articles on writing as this will attract more Wikipedia editors and could help the writing of Wikipedia editors. Knox490 (talk) 04:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that it is well written, but substantive editing, otherwise referred to as content editing, is already described at length in the copy-editing article, and I do not see how that description differs from this term -- the article is predominantly redundant in that context. More importantly, the notation 'comprehensive editing' is not widely accepted, and essentially a tautology. I am also concerned it is an oblique attempt at self promotion. Perhaps if more sources were found to show it as a distinct and more generally used terminology, but tough to accept the article as it stands. Could merge portions into copy-editing so the novice editor does not feel their efforts went to waste and to lessen the perception of biting, as they certainly know how to express themselves clearly and would be a welcome addition to the site. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having had some time to consider it, there is probably enough novel content to keep this as a separate article with a retitle/maintenance tag as content editing (rather than substantive editing), to allow it to be retrolinked more clearly to copyediting. I have made some additional revisions as well. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 00:45, 16 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

S-Paint

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

Contested proposed deletion without reason for contestation given. Reason given in proposed deletion was: "Article has no serious claims of significance or notability in our standards, notability cannot be inherited and especially not when it's an apparently new software." Sjrct (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article contributed by User:ISwaggMaster123 on software co-developed by Swagg and Kulmetor43. The given links are primary, and I am seeing nothing better. Fails WP:NSOFT, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 06:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable, short-lived personal project. Dgpop (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per AllyD. No coverage, no nothin'. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:04, 19 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Point 453

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

Only a few mentions in local sources. Does not meet WP:NFILM NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 00:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, WP:COI promotion. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the author clearly has a COI, and this is clearly WP:TOOSOON for an unknown 2017 film to be notable. We really need a WP:CSD criterion for blatantly non-notable films. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all of the aforementioned reasons. I also second Anachronist's idea of a speedy category for non-notable films - maybe even a more generalized non-notable "creative works" (e.g. films, books, etc.). These types of junk articles are way too common. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFILM.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:03, 19 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.

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 <!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peering.cz}} -->
 <!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bottle match}} -->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Denniss}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Denniss}} -->
 <!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonnu Smith}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Berggruen Prize}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristijan Boskovski}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Me and My Grandma}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Me and My Grandma}} -->
 <!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summer Breeze (concert)}} --><!--Relisted-->
 <!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megumi Kubota}} --><!--Relisted-->