Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 30: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:08, 30 May 2017

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 May	31 May >

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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 19:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meister Cook

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

PROD contested by IP. Non-notable business where the claim to fame seems to be that it has appeared in Inc's list of growing businesses. This doesn't confer the depth of coverage needed by WP:ORGDEPTH and there isn't substantial coverage in other sources that we typically expect for businesses to meet WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- just a promo blurb. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World of Good

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

Procedural nomination. I've declined a {{prod}} on this as the article has existed for over a decade and multiple editors have worked on it implying that they at least implicitly consider it worth keeping. However, I'm having difficulty finding any significant coverage outside press releases. (Because the name is a common phrase, an online search is a needle-in-a-haystack exercise; the sources may be out there and just buried under false positives.) ‑ Iridescent 18:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes the name makes it challenging but after some digging I've found articles in Forbes and SFGate (SF Chronicle's sister web site), as well as in Time Magazine, though that's paywalled so I can't cite anything yet. (link: [1]). Searching on the founder, Priya Haji, also helps return some good sources, though often only tangentially covering this company. I'll keep digging as I have time, but I think the coverage is out there. Crow^Caw 17:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable private company / subsidiary. I had looked for sources before I PRODed the article, and I was only finding routine announcements or PR-driven coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in reliable sources. The sources provided by Crow are press releases and do not establish notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per discovery of new sources and article improvements. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 07:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Feather

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

Prod'd then restored at DRV. Subject fails WP:GNG and specifically WP:AUTHOR Legacypac (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maybe it is important for the people related to history. I will try to add stuff and do some research. Wikipedia is a good source for History-sensitive articles Prof.Marlin (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I love history. Get it past the requirements of WP:AUTHOR and it's fine. Legacypac (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ -- no indications of passing GNG nor AUTHOR. I'm unable to locate sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not particularly notable minor publisher, does not meet GNG.PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable guy back in the day, beware presentism! Sourcing it now.[2] E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone have access to the Plain Dealer archive? I was able to access only a snippet of the Plain Deal obit. It would be good to see the coverage of the battle with the union that drove him form Cleveland. He ran a large printing company; one of the things the company did was to print magazines. To promote it, he had his own, the William Feather Magazine running stories of interest to businessmen. Perhaps as a spin off to this, he was syndicated in some form so that little bits of wisdom from his pen appeared in newspapers in cities nationwide. And some of his bits of wisdom appear in recent book that collect notable bits of wisdom (just scroll through a few pages of a gBooks search on his name. Also, since he owned the printing plant, he published his own books, but they must have drawn attention since in 1927 one got reviewed in the New York Times and Detroit Free Press, [probably in other papers too. He also wrote for some of the serious national magazines of the day, and was quoted in the early thirties by journalists trying to figure out what was happening to the economy, His ideas on the topic were taken seriously. And he did survive the depression with a big company intact. Hope other editors with access to other archives will add some sources. E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the presentism caveat. Old school figures do not always have a prominent digital footprint, making the process of finding sources especially challenging. This should be taken into account. References could be improved, but the article has value and should not be thrown out. ToddLara729 (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 17:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per E.M.Gregory's efforts. Some Googling reveals that Case Western's Encyclopedia of Cleveland History states that Feather's writings earned him a "national reputation" [3]; that H. L. Mencken used some of Feather's work to illustrate a point in The American Language [4]; and that gBooks produces a citation of Feather as the source of a hoary adage in The Concise Columbia Dictionary of Quotations [5]. One might be able to minimize each of these, if analyzed separately and with a skeptical eye, but taken as a group they suggest he was a significant writer worthy of encyclopedic attention. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recent article improvements; the notability is a bit iffy still, but the inclusion in Encyclopedia of Cleveland history is sort of indicative of notability. An acceptable stub at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this article has been prodded twice! here and here, naughty, naughty Coolabahapple (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is one of those tougher cases that requires digging hard to find sources. It looks like it might pass GNG now. Legacypac (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, thanks to sources highlighted by above editors ('keepers' that is:)), have also found a couple of short reviews for The Business of Life: "this is a fairly expansive running commentary on life .. And we have an uneasy premonition that the publishers might possibly be grooming this for the Dale Carnegie market. Consider yourselves- if not encouraged- at least alerted." - Kirkus Reviews and "is a treasure chest of plain talks, homilies and wise thinking. Feather has a deft touch." - The Forum, a little more and we could have a separate article on this book (i wonder if it contains some of his quotable quotes that seem to pop up from "One of the funny things about the stock market is that every time one person buys, another sells and both think they are astute." to "All the books extolling the simple life are written by men.", not to mention those at wikiquote ("but coola you just did":))), also Erika Andersen referred to Feather ("It seems to me that most people hold one of two opposing definitions of business: they either agree with Feather (and me) that business ...") in this article. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per article improvements. Artw (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 12:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olive Boutique Hotel

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

fails WP:CORP. created by a one edit User with booking.com and tripadvisor as sources it looks suspiciously like an advert. Gnews comes up with same named hotel in Puerto Rico which may be notable LibStar (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another non notable business using Wikipedia for free advertising . No secondary independent sources except trip advisor and booking sites as references. Ajf773 (talk) 05:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plainly promotional and non-notable with no RS's. --Lockley (talk) 04:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Meets none of the criteria for an article. User should consider adding to Wikivoyage instead. Greenman (talk) 06:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet GNG Chetsford (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Legend of Zelda. We have a Redirect and selective Merge, a Redirect and a Delete. That indicates that there is a consensus against a stand alone article. Beyond that none of the arguments really trump one another in terms of how to get rid of it, so I am going to make a judgement call here and go with the middle course. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda: The Hero of Time

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

I don't think this meets GNG. It has some mentioned in sources (some OTN now) but nothing that is substantial and specific coverage. It's been years since it released, it's clear there's not going to be more sources covering this either. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 17:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and selective merge to The Legend of Zelda I ran a proquest news archive searches on "The Legend of Zelda: The Hero of Time ", then on "Legend of Zelda: The Hero of Time", then on "The Hero of Time" + Zelda. that last search turned up this review: Retira Nintendo filme sobre videojuego 'Zelda' Díaz, Jesús. Mural; Guadalajara, Mexico [Guadalajara, Mexico]04 Jan 2010: 2. [6] and this review on Engadget Upcoming 'Zelda' amiibo unlocks a challenge dungeon, Seppala, Timothy J. Engadget, New York: AOL Inc. Jan 21, 2016. [7] Not enough to support an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. This is cool, but... where are the references? Like EMG above, I cannot find any. As such, this fails WP:GNG and sadly, does not deserve an independent early. Strange, though, that a geeky topic like this didn't generate any coverage, you'd think Kotaku etc. would be all over it. I found some coverage of an audiotrack with a similar name ([8]), but I think that's what we are discussing here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is about a fan film, not the phrase "hero of time", which is used in other capacities in the series. The question is whether this phrase is worth redirecting (and covering) in the main article, and based on the above sourcing (+ this source), no, it is not worth mentioning or redirecting. (Further, a redirect would be inappropriate if the fan film was not mentioned in the article, which it is not and should not.) Choosing whether to redirect Hero of time there is a different, but more apt consideration based on the other sources found above. czar 05:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Jupitus Smart 17:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Soccer War (book)

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

No evidence of any notability for this book. The only reference has a void URL and can't be checked. Searches yield nothing of any merit. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Massive number of laudatory reviews, here's the new archive search I ran [9]. the archive is behind a paywall, I don't know it that search can be seen by editors without access to Proquest. But in all events, the book is notable, article needs to be sourced. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that many reviews come up on a simple google search of Kapuściński + "the soccer war" [10]. Same search on gNews [11]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And stuff like this [12]. Article needs an editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK, plenty of review available including Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews, Booklist, Library Journal Bamboo by William Boyd, London Review of Books. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Passes WP:BOOKCRIT and WP:GNG: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] (subscription required). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Glory Days (Little Mix album). Page protection can be requested at WP:RFPP iff required. So Why 12:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You Gotta Not (Little Mix song)

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

Probably fails WP:NSONGS, was redirected by Livelikemusic last week under that rationale. A few blogs (but no major publications) covered this on its release as a promotional single. It did, however, chart (at number 61 in the UK; and in two other countries). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Raritydash (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. livelikemusic talk! 01:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable here. Ss 112 03:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. --Lockley (talk) 05:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSONGS as per nom. Bennv3771 (talk) 10:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Get Weird to Glory Days seems appropriate or delete per above comments. I would be fine with either decision. Aoba47 (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Get Weird. Carbrera (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- Do you mean redirect to Glory Days? Because that is a song from "Glory Days", not "Get Weird". Raritydash (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support redirection to Glory Days (Little Mix album) + page protection. Pinging Aoba47 and Carbrera. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 08:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out for me. Aoba47 (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Redirect - Fails NSONG, redirect to the album. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Spindrift (band). Delete !votes do not preclude the option of redirecting, so that's what I'm going to do. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Hansen

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

Non-notable member of some local bands (the only one with its own article, Spindrift, itself seems to be of questionable notability). The references currently in the article don't include anything resembling a reliable source, and even more striking, none of them even mention Zachary Hansen. I spent some time looking for sources on my own and couldn't find anything that could help to satisfy WP:GNG. Also, the article creator shares the same name as the subject's former web company, pointing to the likelihood of a conflict of interest. Camerafiend (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 14:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to notability, and very likely promotional, per nom. --Lockley (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet GNG Chetsford (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Spindrift (band) per WP:ATD-R. I cannot find anything establishing his notability as an individual but his name might be a useful search term and he is mentioned on the band's page. Regards So Why 12:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Spindrift (band) as suggested by SoWhy. Not enough independent notability to warrant a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 07:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shimmer and Shine characters

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

Non-notable OR, fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced sprawling fancruft. Any major characters can be mentioned briefly in the show's article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge while trimming appropriately back into the main series article, which is far shorter than this. I'll note that both the nom and the above !vote, and any subsequent !votes that do not explain why WP:ATD-M should not apply are not policy-based and should be discarded by the closer. Jclemens (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note:ATD-M discusses "Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded", which doesn't seem to be a problem here. Further, it discusses what "could be" or is "generally" done, not what "should" or "must" be done. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A selective merge would seem appropriate as the main article does not contain any information on the characters. I would also be okay with a delete, but some of the information from this list would somewhat be beneficial for the parent article. I am in agreement with Jclemens on this one. Aoba47 (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge seems reasonable for a popular multi season show to have a character list. Artw (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shimmer and Shine, the section needs to be copy-edited as well. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article, undo the edit removing the list from the main article and edit the section down to a reasonable size. There is no indication of notability outside of the series or a need for this extensive compilation of in-universe material. A substantially shorter listing would be appropriate in the main article. Normally, that would be a selective merge. However, this article was created with an unattributed copy-paste from the main article.[20][21] Merging or selectively merging material back to the main article would further compound the problem. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- So rather than merge, revert the spinout? Sounds reasonable. How about we do that and leave a redirect in place? Is there any reason to not do that, given that redirects are cheap? Jclemens (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, given the number of "List of _________ characters" articles we have, this is a reasonable redirect. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a summary to TV show. Let's face it, this is 99.9% OR fancruft. Some summary of the characters is useful for the plot, etc., but there is a point we reach pure OR and facrufting, and it is clear this is way past it here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly not standalone notable, and far too voluminous and unsourced to merge. We should just delete obvious fancruft because its presence deters from writing actual encyclopedic prose instead. Sandstein 05:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 19:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless notability is established, there is no need for it to exist. There is no need to merge it unless the content is deemed important enough to salvage. TTN (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is 2006-vintage show cruft about a kid's show and its characters for sure. You can pretty much be sure no six year-old is reading this to find out the 20-sentence character description and motivations of "Genies". Nate • (chatter) 06:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- excessive fancruft, mostly overdetailed plot summary written in an in-universe style, and with virtually no sources. There is no chance that any of this stuff could be usefully merged anywhere. Reyk _YO! 09:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost entirely unsourced. Fails WP:V. You can't merge unsourced material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 12:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excel Capital Management

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

No evidence of notability. Relevant references are peripheral mentions or blogs, often written by the organisation itself or by its staff. Nothing here convinces me about notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 00:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet GNG Chetsford (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Twice relisted and nowhere near a consensus. It's time to move on. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luxury yacht tender

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

Overly promotional, mostly unsourced, and probably not notable. Maybe some of this could be merged to Ship's tender. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or partial merge if anyone can be bothered editing it, but the content is, as mentioned, unsourced, and of questionable accuracy). Nothing to indicate this is a concept separate from Ship's tender or something that has received much specific coverage (multiple articles in mainstream publications specifically about luxury yacht tenders). It doesn't seem a likely search term ("yacht tender" might be but who'll search for this?). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to Yacht tender. Agree the article needs better sourcing and cleanup. And no need for "luxury" in the title. But there is a lot of information specific to yachts, so I don't think merging into Ship's tender is a good plan. Quick searching finds things like [22] and [23]. AFD is not cleanup. MB 15:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ship's tender is all that's required. A line or two could be added there. We have an article on Watch, not on Luxury watch. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article Ship's tender has a list of about a dozen different kinds of tenders and each one is linked to a specific article. If yacht tender were discussed in that article, it would be the only one without a separate article. There is plenty of information available for a stand-alone article. MB 14:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Primefac (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Tracy

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

Non-notable hip-hop artist with coverage only in passing mention, blogs and otherwise non-rs and article sourced almost entirely to soundcloud and YouTube. In fact, the most significant coverage I can find of Tracy is in reference to him pissing off a former KKK leader. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Per nomination. Fails WP:MUSICBIO Coderzombie (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 12:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think this is too soon. He was featured on a couple of tracks that got Pitchfork reviews ([24], [25]), and he garnered a paragraph in this article, but that's about all the coverage I can find at this point. He may get there but I don't think he has yet. Camerafiend (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but currently, while there is some limited coverage, it is not of the breadth and in-depth type needed to establish they pass WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Since an AFD has been opened for the other page, I'll let what happens there happen. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IV Life...

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

Non-notable album by non-notable musician. When the only half-reasonable reference I can find is a Huffpo piece, it should probably be deleted as A9, but that's already been contested, hence why we're here. Primefac (talk) 12:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Speedy) delete the fact that notable artists appeared on this album doesn't nullify the fact that the artist does not have his own page. If I were the creator I would have started with the artist's page and then moved on his albums. Domdeparis (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

still Speedy Delete it because the artist does not have their own page and therefore it fits one of the CSDs exactly. I appreciate the note on my talk page about the decline and that Primefac beat me to nominating it here. Legacypac (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not eligible for speedy deletion. A9 requires that there be no claim of significance, and contributions by multiple notable artists is enough of a claim of significance to survive A9. A9 is a special exception to A7's exclusions; the lack of a claim of significance is the important criterion; the lack of an artist article comes into play only when there is no claim of significance. It's not a balancing matter, any valid claim of significance "outweighs" the absence of an artist article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mixtape, so none of the other artists did anything to make the tape. Legacypac (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you appear here following my contribs?Winged Blades^Godric 11:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wings tagged it CSD. Wolfowitz removed the tag, then posted here. Legacypac (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac:--Prob. you mis-understood my question due to the wrong indentation.This was meant for Hullaballoo.See our recent interactions!Winged Blades^Godric 11:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Godric replaced a speedy after it had been declined already, a generally improper editing practice I've been addressing for years. My comment here is mostly directed to Domdeparis's !vote above, which seriously misconstrues speedy deletion standards. But I don't expect much beyond groundless abuse from an editor who labelled me a "half-literate myopic" on my talk page this morning. As for Legacypac's substantive point, at this point the article claims this is a legitimate album with a number of notable guest performers, and that's the claim speedy proposals are measured against. If the claim isn't transparently false, but requires investigation, it's not speediable. That's why obvious hoaxes can be speedied, but clever ones go to AFD. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update I've found and added the sister album The Glass Ceiling Project to the nomination as it is the same artist, same issues exactly. Ping previous voters User:Primefac, Guy Macon,talk, and CSD tagger Godric please confirm your vote for the other page. Legacypac (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I've removed it. I can understand the intention, but it's just procedurally bad timing. It's one thing to add a second page a day or two after the nomination was created, but it's another to add a new page to a week-old discussion and force it to be relisted. Primefac (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Had not realized we were so close to a week. I've nom'd the other page here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Glass_Ceiling_Project Legacypac (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - both, if enough former !voters come back and endorse the addition by Legacypac. Fails WP:GNG and nowhere near comes close to meeting WP:NALBUM or WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both for the same reasons posted previously. Should we put an AfD notice pointing here on the new page? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This might be an IAR situation, because we're already at the IAR stage by adding a page a week later. Adding a notice and then deleting the page an hour or two later (which is likely, given that there are only 12 old open AFDs) seems rather pointless. Primefac (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've nom'd the sister page for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Glass_Ceiling_Project Guy Macon talk talk, and CSD tagger Godric Legacypac (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Twice relisted with no keeps. It's time to move on. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vytautas Nekrošius

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

Fails WP:GNG Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. There is not much coverage online ABOUT him, although the search for that is complicated by the many, many opinion articles written BY him. That, in itself does not confer notability. However, there is some coverage (1 and 2) of his selection as the chairman of the Lithuanian society of legal professionals. In 2015, he was selected as the 4th most influential legal professional in Lithuania (1), but apart from the mention that did not seem to result in significant coverage. There are also some articles about him becoming the youngest member of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences (1 and 2), however, given that the two articles are verbatim copies of each other and not attributed it's almost definitely a press release and thus can not be used to establish notability. Unless something else surfaces, it's not enough to pass WP:GNG. No longer a penguin (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 17:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 08:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 AMF Futsal Women's World Cup

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

not enough secondary sources to establish notability for the 2017 event Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient sources found via Google + Google News using various spellings specific to different regions around the world. I've added a couple to the article. Hmlarson (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you post some of those sources here? Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There appears to be a strong consensus against deletion with the OP apparently being OK with a page move. The issue of whether and where to move the article can be addressed elsewhere. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guangdong Hakka Mother Wine

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

does not seem to be any different from rice wine - the term itself is not in use by secondary sources. Also, WP:NOTCOOKBOOK Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. This is a real thing as far as I can tell. I searched for "客家娘酒" and found that an equivalent article exists on the Chinese Wikipedia as zh:客家黃酒. All the search results refer to "客家娘酒" as a specific type of rice wine. I'd say this article is slightly more than a cook book entry so there's no harm in keeping it. Deryck C. 11:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Deryck Chan. A Google Books search returns multiple sources about the subject. Cunard (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could find any significant sources in English, but of course I did not know the Chinese characters when I nominated. I would prefer it be merged and redirected until someone translates the Chinese page, because there is no way to expand it without Chinese language sources, and because currently it is little more then a recipe, which Deryck Chan acknowleges. I'm not sure we can call it "normal editing" when the sources for a subject are exclusively in the Chinese langugae or I would support improvement over redirecting/merging. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains enough content and sources to justify a standalone article per Wikipedia:Summary style. A merge would result in the loss of content like the "Folklore" section. It would be undue weight to merge Guangdong Hakka Mother Wine to rice wine.

The sources show that the subject is notable so I think it's fine to keep the article as standalone. It's probably more likely that a knowledgeable editor will expand Guangdong Hakka Mother Wine if it remains a standalone article as opposed to being merged.

Cunard (talk) 07:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I agree it would be nice if someone expanded it. But the folklore section is three sentences long, it absolutely would not be undue to merge and redirect until that happens. Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "Method of production" and "Mother Wine Chicken" sections provide value to readers. I don't think the sections are so unfixable that they should just be completely deleted. Cunard (talk) 05:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See if we can't get a couple more editors to weigh in on this one...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Hakka rice wine, which is the literal translation of the Chinese wiki article title, or to Mother wine, which appears to be closer to the actual colloquial name. Ibadibam (talk) 07:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would support moving to Hakka rice wine. as this seems to be term in use in the English language. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 06:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Syed Modi International Grand Prix Gold

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

not much coverage in secondary sources and the article is limited to the 2017 event Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this tournament is the series of the Syed Modi International Badminton Championships and already passes WP:SPORTSEVENT.Stvbastian (talk) 04:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Much like what Stvbastian said as its part of the 2017 BWF Season and as it has been a Grand Prix Gold event since 2011 I think it does pass WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:GNG Matt294069 is coming 23:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, also these badminton events are not notable to stand alone as individual articles. Alternatively a merge can possibly work. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Firstly, the above event was a notable one and all of the major Indian newspapers had dedicated full-fledged articles to it. The information present in the article can be reliably & independently sourced, e.g. [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34],[35], [36], [37], etc. In fact, Hindi language newspapers had started publishing articles on the event before it was even started, e.g. [38], [39], [40], etc.

Secondly, if someone still thinks that it's non-notable, then it's surely a valid case of WP:SPINOFF, as it isn't possible to merge such a huge amount of details of every individual event to the main article. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like routine coverage of a sports event which is not enough for notability. Yes, we have articles about major events like the Superbowl and the Stanley Cup, but we dont have individual stand alone articles for every American Cup in Gymnastics, just one main article American Cup (gymnastics) which seems to be enough. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American Cup (gymnastics) have stand alone articles in 2015 and 2016 and well justified to complete the main page. So, this subject also worthy as standalone article, like NitinMlk said it isn't possible to merge such a huge amount of details of every individual event to the main article.Stvbastian (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, yes there are stand alone articles for those two years of the American Cup, where Olympic gold medalists competed including Simone Biles. That is enough to establish notability for the event. I don't see anything but routine press coverage here, not enough to establish inherent notability. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Routine press coverage is passing mention of match scores/results. But, as I told earlier, five of the sources cited here – [41], [42], [43], [44], & [45] – were published before the beginning of coverage, i.e. before the event was even started. And they describe each & every relevant detail of the event. In fact, the remaining sources are also dedicated to the event. And read my previous comments to understand my points. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject is one of the major badminton tournaments and passes WP:SPORTSEVENT. Event is also covered by reliable sources in detail with almost every Indian newspaper having an article about it. Passes WP:GNG. Pratyush (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article does not pass WP:SPORTSEVENT as stated. The relevant line: Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats. This is a problem with a lot of badminton events. It is also a problem with a lot of other sports events. WP:NOT#INFO.

Also against the bid that it qualifies for WP:SPORTSEVENT; it is not the final series, it is one set of matches in a series; it is not a college bowl game; it is not an exhibition or all-star game; and it was not covered outside of the routine coverage of badminton matches of this sort.

This event did not receive coverage to warrant notability. This event will not have a huge impact on the future of badminton as we know it and did not have suitable coverage for notability.The coverage was short term (only lasting for the duration of the event, and enough time to hit the papers). The coverage (looking at the major Indian newspaper coverage from above) was all routine, some of it is the same exact copy published in different papers - of particular note, the First Post and Indian Express articles are the same, the First Post's just cuts off at an earlier paragraph. About 2/3 of the articles are all written by PTI, the Associated Press equivalent in India. The only substantial coverage I could find from above was The IB Times which is the only one to mention that players were dropping out like crazy at the last minute. A substantial problem for the tournament. Or this lovely tidbit from the Patrika article (which is also word-for-word the same as the lnvindia article) that there would be a blood drive at the event - no clue if it actually happened, though because I don't have any other sources.

Being one of 28 tournaments in one of 8 (skipping individual tournaments) such series doesn't make it a major tournament unless something spectacular happens. By my count, (assuming that each series has half the number of tournaments, and this is the exception) that makes it one of ~110 "major" tournaments per year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Menaechmi (talk • contribs) 20:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC) Keep per comments below. menaechmi (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Your whole analysis sounds like WP:JDLI. Even in the articles of Rajasthan Patrika [46], Hindustan (newspaper) [47], and others – which give good overview of the event & its every relevant detail – all you could find is the mention of "blood drive". In fact, that "lovely tidbit" is what you call a routine coverage or a passing mention. And don't worry, blood donation did happen. ;) As far as "well-sourced prose" is concerned, the above sources are sufficient for that, but no one is forced to clean-up articles during AFDs, as presence of reliable sources is enough. Also, you mentioned that "it is not the final series, it is one set of matches in a series". What does that even mean? The above event is a full-fledged international tournament, which is organised annually, and it awards world ranking points. Anyway, for those who just don't like badminton-related articles, the above one will still remain a valid spinoff, as explained by me earlier. In fact, WP:SPORTSEVENT also states the same point: "For a games or series that is already covered as a subtopic in another article, consider developing the topic in the existing article first until it becomes clearer that a standalone article is warranted." And as you can see, the above article is already quite long. Finally, don't limit yourself to the sources provided be me, as you can find a large no. of other sources by searching terms like syed modi badminton 2017, Syed Modi India Grand Prix Gold 2017, Syed Modi gpg 2017, etc. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it does sound like that, doesn't it? And that's just not right. You have effectively and clearly refuted the points that I made, and I have withdrawn the delete because you have a valid point, with the addition of the blood drive it (and the amount of money awarded to rankings etc.) there really is no reason to delete this article. I think I realized that halfway through and then for some reason kept going. This has the potential for quite a bit more than what it has now, and it will probably get there eventually. It definitely doesn't qualify for deletion under under the nom. menaechmi (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for such a thoughtful response. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 12:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eusebio Martinelli

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

I do not think the career as reported here shows notability as either WP:PROF or WP:CREATIVE. I declined a speedy, because the recordings and book are a claim to some significance. DGG ( talk ) 10:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No claim to notability. --Lockley (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Coderzombie (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet GNG Chetsford (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ESL (eSports). (non-admin closure) ansh 666 23:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ESL One: Cologne 2017

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

What makes this upcoming tournament notable? Self-referenced, etc. Fails WP:GNG. Perhaps too soon? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least too soon. No problem with a redirect to ESL One, but this is not ready for a separate article given the dearth of sources in the WP:VGRS search [48]. --Izno (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirec which I'm going to BOLDly do. Legacypac (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kacper Laskoś

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

WP:NOTSTATS. Nothing can be said about him; there is a short article at [49] but it pretty much states he is a youth debutant in Extraklasa, gives few quotes and stats/bio details (born in, joined Football team X in 200XX, etc.). During this training he had a small accident, and he was nervous during his debut game. This clearly fails WP:GNG. Before someone argues that he passes (or not) Wikipedia:Notability (sports), let me quote from that policy: "Q: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline? A: No, the subject must still eventually meet the general notability guideline. ". So unless we can show he meets GNG, well, NOSTATS etc. Meeting NSPORTS or not is about as irrelevant as whether he has a Polish Wikipedia article (which incidentally he does not have, too). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL, he has played in a fully-professional league. GiantSnowman 21:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And the little part about him failing GNG and NFOOTBALL defaulting to GNG...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 12:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Having played in the Polish top flight, he meets WP:NFOOTY, and given his age does not meet the usual criteria for ignoring that guideline when only just met. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:NFOOTY. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 12:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rafal Hanusowski

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

200+ google hits, nothing in news, no significant awards/descriptions of works, WP:TOOSOON at best - currently fails WP:CREATIVE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that the subjects meets any of the notability criteria in WP:CREATIVE. Mduvekot (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – badly referenced blp with no significant coverage in news or books, fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. — Quasar G. 09:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear case of WP:TOOSOON. He is an emerging artist, definitely failing WP:CREATIVE for now. No prejudice for recreation in future in case more notability is established. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Konami code. There is consensus that a stand-alone list is not appropriate but also that deleting the material altogether is neither. So Why 06:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Konami code games

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

WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:CATALOG. WP:GAMECRUFT material. A couple of examples are more than sufficient to mention on main article Konami Code. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominated List of non-Konami games using the Konami code (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for deletion. It's been a while since I nominated two or more articles, so I'm a bit rusty. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, as per WP:NOTCATALOGUE and WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. All the content appears to be is how to use the Konami code in every game, not encyclopedic. Ajf773 (talk) 11:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but trim and potentially merge to Konami code The code's use in games is a notable topic, and there are definitely some that can be sourced. As per WP:TRIVIA, we should only include those that have been commented on by third-parties, which would gut several of the games from both lists. As this might leave something rather short, that combined list can then be moved over into the Konami code article proper. This !vote should not be taken as a "keep as is", these need cleanup regardless. --MASEM (t) 13:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note, like @Masem said, merging is also an option of course, to keep the best examples. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per what MASEM said OblivionOfficial (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above, the info can be adequately covered at the Konami code article. TheValeyard (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep I'm not 100% sure but Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists seems to apply better than WP:NOTCATALOGUE and the concept seems to be notable. Reducing the list to the "best" examples brings us into the OR terrain, so better keep it. Shaddim (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaddim, your reasoning does not make sense. The concept is Konami Code, which is notable. List of Konami code games has one reference and List of non-Konami games using the Konami code has nine references, but you're saying that if we would merge it to a neatly sourced section on its main article, that would be original research? So the largely unsourced stuff currently, that's not original research? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being here unclear, "merge" by itself is not OR. I meant the "reduction to the best subset" (exmaples) could border OR (or at least I have seen this argumentation repeatedly elsewhere in WP against incomplete "example lists"). About the reach of notability, only the notability of the multiplicity of concrete Konami Code instances was shown (not the abstract concept as especially important or well designed or novel) so I would argue we HAVE TO represent the instances. The natural form is a list. Shaddim (talk) 07:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - Nothing against merging sourced entries on the list in theory, since Shaddim's OR objection only applies if they're presented as an example list instead of used to illustrate a point. However, looking over the sourced examples I don't see much of use, just iterations of "This is how to use the Konami Code in this game." Shaddim's claim that the notability of multiplicity means we have to list individual instances makes no sense; by that logic, Black Death should have a list of every person killed by the Black Death. Notable multiplicity is precisely why we shouldn't keep a list of individual examples. This is the same reason why articles on pop and jazz standards don't list every cover version.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There seems to be still a mistunderstanding against what I argued: the middle ground -> reducing the list to a list of examples, this act could (and maybe should?) be seen as OR. All the other solutions are fine for me, which are from my perspective: keep, merge (full?), delete the list or both. Regarding the Black Death, this is quite the opposite: Black Death is notable (in the meaning relevant) not in its individual instances of killings but as concept, it has properties which where novel and had impact on humankind in many signficant ways (while a complete list of all black death victims would be of great historical interest ;) ). The opposite is true for the Konami code: it's (small) relevance grew with every instance where it was used (or at least was WP notability established that way!). By itself it is an quite unimportant, non-novel and boring thing. PS: what about a Category instead of a list? Shaddim (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the appearance of the Konami Code is not a defining characteristic of a video game (WP:CATDEF). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keep !voters correctly point out that filming to start is not required for the film to be notable but there is no consensus whether it actually is at this point. So Why 18:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Ascension (film)

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

Non notable future film. Contrary to claimed in the last afd principal photography had not commenced then and still has not now. Last update at imdb said "Securing filming locations". Film lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Just a few reproductions of routine casting announcements, reproduction of PR is not independent. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The movie seems to have a number of notable cast members and a decent-sized budget. There are many Wikipedia articles on movies of this size. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 06:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. Last bit of development news was in 2015. No indication at this point that filming will actually start. It can be recreated if filming does start and if there is sufficient coverage from reliable sources about it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - They posted some update announcements back in February on Facebook. There's not much info but it sounds like it's still in progress. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 01:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like they spent time on another film. I do not find it to satisfy WP:NFF, though, since there is no indication that filming has started and since no secondary source has reported on this news. If they really do make the film and get covered by secondary sources, then an article can be had for the ages. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it unwise to ignore instructions of WP:GNG. Even if never made into a film, a topic's notability is determined through coverage, not existence. Under WP:ATD through coverage we can always temporarily redirect a "worrisome" topic to writer/director or major actors whose involvement gets press related to the project. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to indicate this movie is actually being made, last news was years ago. Page can be re-created if the movie happens Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a "word" was given just last February, not "years ago". And even if never made as a film, a topic's notability is determined through coverage, not existence. How about a redirect or a draftify? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per meeting notability criteria for unreleased films and through WP:GNG meeting WP:NF. And while we do not require coverage to be eternal, it appears in may release this coming December. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 19:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Music Crowns

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

A WP:SPA The creator of this wikipedia page has a close relation to the owner of the business. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. 24.9.98.30 (talk) 1:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like a short press release, and I am not seeing enough to suggest this meets WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obvious spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 12:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nessex

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

A WP:SPA The links listed for proof of verification are broken and not of a celebrity standard for wikipedia. Seems like they are using this page for promotional use not facts on how they have changed the industry from a celebrity stand point. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. 24.9.98.30 (talk) 1:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage seems very niche. Seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per nom. Edit history of original editor shows promotional, um, motive. --Lockley (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Derick Martin

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 09:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting a final time to hopefully generate any discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:NHOCKEY: hasn't played in a top level league (which I assume would mean the NHL) or received high level honours in a second-level league (AHL). He has got a little press[50][51] in his home town of Timmins (pop. 41,788) but nothing to meet WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: my searches seem to agree with the above, only finding local routine coverage and nothing more of significance for GNG. Falls short of NHOCKEY in all regards. Yosemiter (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merge proposals etc. may be evaluated at talk page. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 07:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Lesotho Defence Force helicopter crash

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

To quote the person who Proded this article- "No evidence that this accident is noteworthy for a stand-alone article, helicopter crashes are not rare particularly military operated ones. Really needs to be the cause of death of a wiki notable person or another notable feature to have an article." This crash is tragic but not notable. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:32, 6 May 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? 17:32, 6 May 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? 17:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:32, 6 May 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? 17:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom.Icewhiz (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the article, and as I explained on its talk page, I fail to see where we have an explicit requirement that such articles need to be 'the cause of death of a wiki notable person or another notable feature' - that seems vague to say the least. If you look at our 2017 and 2016 articles for aircraft incidents, you will see quite a few that are just AS notable as this one. I understand why private planes and helicopters don't fit the shoe, but in this case it's a country with a very small air force, and one where accidents don't generally happen that often, so there is some notability to it IMO. The other articles serve as a precedent, so unless there is a specific rule that I am missing, we either have to enforce the same rules to all older articles and lose a LOT of them, or come up with some sort of compromise. Just my two cents. Skycycle (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is WP:AIRCRASH and precedents don't count for much (WP:Other stuff exists); however it being a country with a very small air force counts as another notable feature. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Hawkeye7 stated - see WP:AIRCRASH. As these being part of the Lesotho Defence Force - sorry, I don't see how this counts for much. The Lesotho air wing is really just a general aviation wing that isn't expected to carry out any role in a war (As Lesotho is landlocked and surrounded completely by the much larger South Africa - in any conceivable military conflict with South Africa, aviation wouldn't last for more than a day (the ground forces might do marginally better, and might be able to put up an irregular/guerrilla campaign afterwards) - it might carry out some role in an irregular conflict with local rebels, but otherwise seems to be mostly geared for regular governmental transport - it is borderline itself for an article (which it doesn't have - is included with Lesotho Defence Force - a small organization overall - as per article 3,100 personnel). Being part of a marginal, non-useful (in any organized international conflict, possible use vs. internal rebels), military of a marginal country - doesn't make this crash more notable than others - if at all less notable. Police helicopters crash all the time - if the crash isn't notable in terms of damage on the ground, specific fatalities (notable victims), or a large amount of victims (e.g. a Sikorsky CH-53 Sea Stallion or Boeing CH-47 Chinook which can lead to a high double-digit body count) - it isn't notable.Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The crash of an aircraft belonging to a very small air force which resulted in multiple fatalities is likely to have lasting notability. Nick-D (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per Nick-D's comment the incident had a big impact on Lesotho's airforce and with the investigation ongoing there is a strong possibility the content of the article will be expanded soon. If the final discussion here is more leaning twords delete than keep, I'd advise the closing admin to please consider a Mergeing of the content of this article to the Lesotho Defence Force. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant ongoing coverage, just news reports and then silence concerning the subject. It might be worth mentioning in the Lesotho Defence Force article (and I am not sure that it should be), but it certainly doesn't warrant a stand-alone article. YSSYguy (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my statement when I proposed deletion "No evidence that this accident is noteworthy for a stand-alone article, helicopter crashes are not rare particularly military operated ones. Really needs to be the cause of death of a wiki notable person or another notable feature to have an article." Nothing has emerged since that shows anything noteworthy. MilborneOne (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no societal impact or lasting significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 15:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as per Nick-D. I think it would be appropriate to include this incident in Lists_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_military_aircraft. Whilst this event probably falls fractionally short of WP:AIRCRASH, it is nevertheless brief, well written and appears adequately referenced. Whilst I'm unaware of any policy encouraging comparison of short factual articles like this one with innumerable and lengthy ones about trivial fictional characters or C-grade social media personalities, I think it just about stands up to scrutiny against them. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 15:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or better Merge the content of this article to the Lesotho Defence Force. I think some of the arguments for deletion have a big country bias. It is significant for a small country's defense forces to be sure but it is hard to see why a single helicopter crash should have an article of its own. It will have a proper context in the Lesotho Defense Force article Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 09:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lesotho Defence Force. It is a significant incident for the Lesotho Defence Force, but doesn't require its own article. Better to move the contents.Seaweed (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per comments above Nördic Nightfury 13:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 23:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ahsan Tahir

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

autobio by User:Ahsantahirat. most of the cited sources are not reliable. he has received some news coverage based on a single event. fails per WP:BLP1E Saqib (talk) 08:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. The hacking event sounds a lot more important than the subject/person of the article. Daphne Lantier 21:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 07:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as BLP1E, and even the event wasn't particularly notable with only one good source (NBC). — Quasar G. 15:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 03:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stavrula Gotsis

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

There is some coverage here (which is why I declined the A7 speedy request) but other than that, I cannot find any substantial coverage about her (just some passing mentions in lists of physicians). Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. So Why 08:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I knew her personally and will be updating the article further with sources included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgvtornado (talk • contribs) 21:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 03:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 03:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 03:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I've looked high and low, and every source points back to the obituary you mentioned already. I just don't think she is notable, or even close to being notable. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 03:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too little information to support notability. The claim that she was the first female plastic surgeon in Chicago is not confirmed by the Chicago Tribune obituary[52] (the only useful source) which has her down as "one of the first" female plastic surgeons in the area. JFW | T@lk 13:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 19:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laboratory Robotics Interest Group

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

I found no significant coverage per WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk|c|em) 08:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article doesn't even has a link to their webpage, total failure of WP:V, in addition to GNG and likely OR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. After improvement, the consensus was to keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mabrur Rashid Bannah

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

Fails notability per WP:ARTIST, WP:BIO . Nominating for AfD as existing requests for improvement were not paid heed to since Jan 17. Devopam (talk) 04:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is incomprehensible, so my first reaction was WP:TNT. There are many independent reliable sources available, however, so he is notable and Wikipedia should have an article about him. I'll take a stab at rewriting it tomorrow. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk|c|em) 08:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I blew it up and started over. It took more effort than I wanted to expend, but the result is, I think, understandable, accurately sourced, and of value to the encyclopedia. If nom's concerns have been addressed, please consider withdrawing the nomination. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I commend Worldbruce for their work improving this article to demonstrate notability. Their work is a benefit to the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to meet WP:ARTIST. Lack of quality doesn't automatically warrant deletion. --nafSadh did say 18:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Only delete !vote is a WP:VAGUEWAVE without further explanation. Narutolovehinata5 mentioned coverage in reliable sources which was not disputed or further discussed. Rest of nominator's rationale is straight out of WP:ATA, mainly mentioning problems that can be fixed by editing. So Why 18:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donnalyn Bartolome

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

Another BLP with no established notability as per WP:GNG, with little or no coverage around the web. I also notice that the article is in pretty bad shape, bordering either on WP:OR or WP:FANCRUFT, and WP:CITEIMDB, which are not good. Blue sphere 08:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk|c|em) 08:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. On YouTube, she has about 240k subscribers and 32m views, which is a fair amount. Is there a policy for YouTubers on Wikipedia? In some respects, their notability exists only on YouTube. For example , I just picked one of her video's at random from a few weeks ago "Donnalyn Dance Cover" and its got about 153k views, 4k likes and 200 comments. She's probably got more support than some musicians listed on YouTube.Seaweed (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Seaweed: As far as I know, we don't have an internet personality notability guideline, and YouTube views and subscriber counts are not necessarily enough to establish notability; we have had articles on very popular YouTube personalities being deleted before due to lacking coverage in reliable sources. But in the case of this one, it appears she has been covered in reliable sources such as the Philippine Daily Inquirer ([53], [54]) and Rappler ([55]). She also appears to have been nominated for the MTV EMA awards as a wildcard; I'm not sure if such a nomination by itself is reliable given that apparently it was by public vote, but that's something, I guess. In any case, she does appear to be notable, not for being a popular YouTuber, but for passing the WP:GNG. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete~~Weak Keep per Seaweed~~fails GNG Chetsford (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Psychonaut 4

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

Non-notable band, absolutely no sources besides completely unreliable stuff like Metal Archives. They never won an award, were published in a international magazine or given any real coverage outside their home country (Georgia). A lot of the content itself is just copy pasta from their Metal Archives page too (plagiarism from another website) Second Skin (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk|c|em) 08:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of WP:RS either in article or in searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 07:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley J. Larkin

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. A few obituaries confirm she owned a dance studio, but it did not appear particularly notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk|c|em) 08:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Her Pioneer Press obituary doesn't show anything that would qualify her. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Current sources fail WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Searching found nothing helpful. Gab4gab (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Degurse

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 12:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk|c|em) 08:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, doesn't meet NHOCKEY Power~enwiki (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: very little coverage and what does exist is only routine local newspapers. Seems to have had his number retired by a low level team. Otherwise fails GNG and definitely fails NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Dougherty

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk|c|em) 08:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Trying one last time to generate any discussion on this subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; doesn't meet NHOCKEY. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this probably could have been speedily deleted as its only reference is a stats page. Zero hits on news searches as a player or coach. Yosemiter (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Relisted three times with the sole registered vote being delete. It's time to move on. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Van Vliet

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk|c|em) 08:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ meets NHOCKEY point 4: "Achieved preeminent honors in a lower minor or major junior league" Power~enwiki (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: Please re-read the NHOCKEY guideline again, the SPHL (and other low level leagues) has not been proven to have players with presumed notability in any regard as described with the list linked in the first sentence of NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I misread the article, I thought the honors were from his time in the ECHL. I remain neutral. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: only appears to have WP:ROUTINE coverage, so fails GNG by way of no significant coverage (regardless of NHOCKEY). Also fails NHOCKEY, highest achievement was an award in a lower league that has no presumed player notability per the NHOCKEY League Assessment, so the player must meet GNG to be proven notable. Yosemiter (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Relisted three times with the sole vote being delete. It's time to move on. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Laney

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

Sources are mostly promotional, trivial, or do not mention him at all. Songs that he's written are grossly overinflated, as most of them are by non-notable artists or were not released as singles. No reliable sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk|c|em) 08:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article created by SPA that has been poorly-sourced since the beginning. As per nom, the sources given are either not significant or not reliable. Links from other articles to this one are bare credits listings on albums that themselves do not show significant evidence for notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wikimedia Foundation. Redirected content may be accessed through the page history. (non-admin closure) f e minist 00:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia project

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

This really doesn't seem like a notable topic on its own, especially when articles for the Wikimedia Foundation and all its reader-facing projects exist. Half of the article is about language codes. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 07:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a lower-quality duplicate of content at Wikimedia Foundation and List of Wikipedias. (This article's layout is poorer and sourcing is mainly to technical documents.) Might be redirected to Wikimedia Foundation but I'm not sure if that would be useful. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge Where appropriate. Some of it here, some of it to Meta. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
redirect/merge: Wikimedia Foundation seems like a good destination GretLomborg (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 11:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wojtek Goral

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

I have hard trouble seeing how this person passes WP:MUSICBIO, through maybe someone more versed in Swedish than me can review the sources better. What I see seems to be mostly niche/in passing. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can not find anything that would constitute non-trivial coverage. The sources are mostly limited to mentioning him as an accompanying saxophonist, not enough to constitute significant coverage. The only longer article that mentions him more than once is from Borås Tidning and even that is mostly about his father, with a few statements about Wojtek, virtually all of them quoted from him directly and thus can not constitute independent coverage. No longer a penguin (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to fail WP:GNG as a non-notable musician. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 10:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 11:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Arthur Jones

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

Subject does not receive reliable secondary coverage, nor are his awards noteworthy enough for an article. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Award-winning, right. My search for "Irina Ratushinskaya Freedom Book Award" couldn't find any description of the award, nor a homepage, just few mentions in passing, seemingly all in relation to this person - which raises a question - is he its only recipient? Veers close to WP:HOAX. Same for "Wilmington Creative Writing Program Book Award". Other refs seem broken and hard to verify too. Nothing I see suggests he meets WP:CREATIVE, and the abysmally low level of sourcing on him makes it possible this is a hoax. In either case, this is a great illustration of abuse of the term "award-winning" :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, the "2005... LizBeth poetry award from the zine" doesn't seem to exist. There is no LizBeth poetry award according to Google and the "zine" is a broken link to an apparently unrelated webpage. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Wikipedias. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 07:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Livvi-Karelian Wikipedia

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

No evidence of notability, unsourced. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 07:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Wikipedias as a valid search term (WP:ATD-R). Cursory source searches are providing no significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: can't find any sources to prove subject's notability, but is a valid search term per Northamerica1000 above, so redirect instead of delete. Seagull123 Φ 23:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 11:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia–North Korea relations

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

this article relies on stringing factoids to somehow imply a notable topic. Whilst no formal relations is not a reason for deletion, the interactions are tangential. for example:

Estonia has been an independent country since its declaration in 1918 before being illegally annexed into the Soviet Union in 1940. Later, the Estonian government-in-exile was formed in 1953 to handle diplomatic matters how does this relate to relations with North Korea?
United Nations Conference on Disarmament, Estonian foreign minister Urmas Paet condemned the recent nuclear test. you'll find almost every Western country condemns north korea on testing.
After the Sony Pictures hacking, the 2014 film, The Interview was banned in all of Estonian cinemas. ACME Film representative Elna-Eva Terasmäe said that Sony Pictures was the victim of an unprecedented criminal action, which negative affected employees, customers and the company itself is really barrel scraping for actual interaction between the countries. LibStar (talk) 07:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Apparently there are no official relations, and the unofficial relations appear trivial. Given the small size of Estonia and the great distance between the countries this shouldn't be seen as surprising. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only reasonable connection is if NATO tangled with DPRK someday. Legacypac (talk) 05:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Federation of Cuba

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

A search on internet reveals the organisation isnt much covered in press, hasnt done anything notable. Not notable enogh for encyclopaedia. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep a search by its Spanish name "Federación Cubana de Béisbol" finds lots of coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar: would you please add a litlle content, and RS to the article? —usernamekiran(talk) 07:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

how does that have any bearing on the article's notability? WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP LibStar (talk) 04:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 07:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 07:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seriously? This is Cuba's equivalent of the MLB, the governing body of a national sport league...or in this case an interconnected system of amateur leagues...is automatically notable. Deletion is not an alternative to cleanup. TheValeyard (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My gosh. This is Cuba's national baseball federation and Cuba is a country that has loved baseball for generations. Indisputably notable. For penance, I request that the nominator improve the article, which should be a straightforward proposition. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @TheValeyard and Cullen328: I see you two passionately commenting here abouttje federation, but i dont see any work on the article. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

I hereby withdraw my nomination. But I think the users who voted for "keep" should at least try a little to work on the article. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

irrelevant as per WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Perhaps you should work on it instead of telling others. LibStar (talk) 09:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar: The only reason I brought the article to AfD was because even after a thorough search, I couldnt find any sources. I would have already done it if I could find anything. And wikipedia doesnt forbid the editors from changing the article. You should take a look at WP:LAWYERING. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 11:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Higuchi

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

Delete: This article was likely WP:TOOSOON in 2012, and my WP:BEFORE did not find any further progression in the subject's career. The external links are multiple copies of the identical press release from 2012. (One is now a dead link.) The young lady has a YouTube channel, with 33 subscribers. Scottyoak2 (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 07:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. " In 2014, Higuchi plans to release her debut album". No updates since. This sub-stub draft could be moved to user's namespace for development, but nothing suggests it belongs in the mainspace. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and please don't clutter userspace with non-notable stuff. Legacypac (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Although there are more pro-keep !votes I'm not overly impressed with the depth of argument and the lack of emphasis on policy and guidelines. A lot seems to be WP:OR. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Free Bahá'ís

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

This page does not pass Wikipedia:Notability. It is just a website with no third party sources. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Free bahais, which also has an AFD. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Free Bahá'ís were a notable movement in the history of the Bahá'í Faith, being one of the denominations in that religion. This article may need some work, but summarily deleting it is not appropriate given that multiple sources are provided as reference in the articles about the movement's founders, Ruth White (Bahá'í author) and Hermann Zimmer. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Baha'i Faith has no major denominations other than the one widely recognized. Splinter groups have never had more than 150 people each and have failed to be sustained. This user is referring to a few dissidents, not a denomination. Ruth White and Herman Zimmer didn't know each other personally and are not founders of a movement. They each wrote a book with similar arguments over 40 years apart in different languages. The term "free Baha'is" was coined recently by dissidents wanting to appropriate them and add legitimacy to themselves, with some irony. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since the time of Ruth White, there have been Free Baha'i groups that have been active, particularly in Germany. This is not a recent coinage of a term. The denial of the existence of Baha'i denominations stems from a religious precept in the Baha'I Faith and not from a sociological reality. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that this article has no third party sources and several are clearly non-reliable. Agreed any splinter groups that formed were very small and never formed a sustained community and often fought with themselves and that the term has no real definition. Smkolins (talk) 10:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with A35821361. There has been a protracted effort on the part of some Baha'i elites to deny the existence of Baha'i denominations. The rationale behind this stance derives from some theological forecasts within Baha'i religios texts. Howeer, Wikipedia as a neutral observer should not parrot whatever baha;i religious texts say and rather deal with demographic realities. Since reliable sources see, to indicate that reality is different from these Baha'i forecasts, our articles should reflect that. 79.67.73.104 (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but without extensive coverage by reliable third party sources, the standards for notability are not met. There are no reliable third party sources because the term "free Baha'is" is used by just a handful of people trying to amplify their image, or by opponents of the Baha'i Faith who try to amplify any and all perceived dissent. If there is anything remotely close to a denomination with sustained membership, then there wouldn't be a complete absence of sources on them. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 02:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regards, A35821361 (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just so I'm clear, Delete, no third party sources. Smkolins (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles written by Moojan Momen, Adib Taherzadeh, and Rúhíyyih Khanum are all third party sources. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certain editors repeatedly delete large parts of this article, particularly parts of it that reference third party sources, and have ironically nominated the article for deletion because it lacks third party sources. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are several sources used that I think have no standing as reliable sources. A google scholar search shows no relevant hits for "Free Baha'is", a more general search fines Zimmer's self-published text. There are some specialized materials that mention Zimmer or White but mostly in a context of a review of all such groups and how they are contradictory, marginal, and unself-sustaining. This doesn't meet notability requirements. This is one such attempt as have been made by a tiny minority - for a similar case see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unitarian Bahaism. There are already two articles about a tiny fraction of the Baha'i population. I see no substantiated reason this article should exist. A group of about two people might fit in one line in the general article on historical divisions. Smkolins (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the accusation that I was deleting sourced content, the "sources" were about Ruth White and Herman Zimmer, not the subject of the article, and those sources are not sources for the article being proposed. This Wikipedia article is based on a single website of dubious reliability. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC

As often as you have deleted bulks of text, you may be confused as to whose sources you have been deleting. The deleted sources I am referring to were articles written by Moojan Momen, Adib Taherzadeh, and Rúhíyyih Khanum, which are all third party sources referring to Free Bahá'ís. For example, view the version of 22:43, 2 June 2017. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance of a 2017 era naming of a "group" named in the 1970s era in a single primary text claiming relationship to a 1920s era single claim is all OR. That's why we keep deleting sources that do not establish the reality of the group. There are no scholarly sources examining the reality of the "group" as such but rather a couple individuals who had no contemporaneous communication, then, or since, recognized in any scholarly source. There is no "group". Smkolins (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 11:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Free Bahá'ís#Sources for the quotes from sources. They indicate the term "Free Baha'is" was used to describe a few disconnected people that did not sustain a denomination of any significance. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion (A7). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf-Boy

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

Clearly non-notable 16-year-old, only his own social media as links Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (possible CSD A7): A WP:SPA article by WolfBoy60961514, sourced only to the subject's social media accounts. No claim to attained notability in any field, nor can I find better. Fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 30 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 keep. There appears to be a rough consensus that enough reliable source coverage exists to ring the WP:N bell. If there is a belief that the project might be better served with a merge that discussion should occur in a dedicated merge discussion. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Acres

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCHAR. ^Falling_Gravity 06:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable. While I haven't really heard of this before, a cursory look at Scholar suggests this character was subject to some literary analysis: " Bob Acres is not the reputed author's original creation, but a compound of Jonson's Stephen, Bobadil, Cob, Matthew and Brainworm" [56]. He has a (short, but still) entry in this dictionary/encyclopedia-like work: Jonathan Law (16 December 2013). The Methuen Drama Dictionary of the Theatre. A&C Black. pp. 4–. ISBN 978-1-4081-3148-0., and he is important enough to be a central subject of what seems to be a teaching exercise at James Stobaugh (1 November 2012). British Literature: Cultural Influences of Early to Contemporary Voices. New Leaf Publishing Group. pp. 238–. ISBN 978-0-89051-673-7.; to find just three sources. Ping User:Jclemens who can probably dig even more sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Piotrus in that a cursory look through Google News, Books, and Scholar suggest that this character has enough coverage for an article. The article may be in an extremely poor shape as it currently stands, but the subject matter appears to have the coverage necessary to meet notability standards. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Rivals and merge the minor detail this article provides. Perhaps there enough reliable sources to establish notability. Having this bit existing separate from The Rivals suffers from lack of context that merging it does not. WP:NCHAR isn't a notability guideline although I like it's 'other options' advice for this subject. Nothing prevents breaking it out to a separate article later if the content is expanded sufficiently to warrant it. Gab4gab (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gary Moore. Selective mergers can be performed by accessing the page history. (non-admin closure) f e minist 05:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Moore (guitarist)

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

Not sufficiently notable on his own as per WP:GNG. Being the son of guitarist doesn't cut it either - as per WP:NOTINHERITED. Whilst there are media reports of him playing at his fathers funeral, this material does not support his notability, and seems best placed in the Gary Moore article, where there is already a mention of these facts. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Gary Moore. Fails WP:GNG on its own. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect there is hardly enough to merge to Gary Moore that is not already mentioned - plays guitar and is recorded as being a guest guitarist at some concerts. Not notable enough. ww2censor (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack moore posted a video on Facebook of him playing the guitar which received nearly 500 thousand views, and nearly 40k likes and almost 8k shares. His facebook page grew from 11k likes to 20k likes as a result. He then posted a video of him playing Albatross which received nealy 100k views showing Jack Moore has a very large fan base. Even Thin Lizzy are sharing his posts.

The performance at the funeral is not what is making Jack a notable guitarist. Its the hundreds of thousands of views and shares of his songs on social media. https://www.facebook.com/jackmooremusicuk/videos/1483364181714797/ --JodyCollinsBAhons (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:09, 30 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 redirect to Cold, Cold Heart (band). (non-admin closure) f e minist 05:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Manning (musician)

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

Fails GNG, sources point to only blogs and press releases, and fails NMUSICIAN. ToThAc (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:MUSICBIO. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cold, cold heart. He is not individually notable, but the band probably is so. Bearian (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:09, 30 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 redirect to Sauza Tequila#Tres Generaciones. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 07:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tres Generaciones

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

Tequila brand that does not meetWP:GNG. And while it may not rise to the level of "unambiguous advertising" much of the material is promotional. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sauza Tequila § Tres Generaciones and possibly include a very selective merge. Some sources exist that cover the topic, such as [57], [58], but not finding enough coverage to qualify a standalone article per WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This discussion has received ample input, and no consensus for a particular action has transpired herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump orb

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

The page was created too soon for a significant coverage to appear. WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON. Furthermore, it is not appropriate to create this article yet, as it is not clear if this meme will become a notable one. There is no need to speculate about that. WP:CRYSTALBALL. Ceosad (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, the WP:CRYSTALBALL argument is quite appropriate here. ^^ --SlvrKy (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is already part of contemporary history, despite various attempts at deleting/revising it. If someone argues this not belonging to Wikipedia according to some guidelines, then those guidelines are wrong. I don't think this being the case here.Crocobauru (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note The above user has ten edits on their account. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. Glowing orb. Herostratus (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as per nom; this is another "whatever Trump did today must have a Wikipedia page" article. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No need to create an article for this. If it stays in the news we can create a new article. Sjö (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note. "It is not clear if this meme will become a notable one" isn't true -- it is already highly notable. There are extensive -- and I mean lengthy and detailed -- pieces about this phenomena in the Guardian, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the two other New York papers, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Newsweek, and other highly notable reliable sources, with more coming in every hour.

You know, I've seen some articles rejected recently on the grounds "OK article, good arguments for keeping, and most participants wanting to keep, but sadly must delete, as does not meet WP:GNG and WP:GNG is policy that must be followed" (it isn't, but you do see that). Well the converse is also true. If we're going to treat WP:GNG more like policy that must be followed, it works both ways, I would think. This article, with extensive coverage in many of the biggest, most notable, most read/watched media entities on the planet, not only meets WP:GNG but smashes it to pieces and bathes in its blood while screaming a victory song. (So to speak.) I would guess that this article has more proof of notability than easily half of our five million articles.

There are five articles (including this one) in Category:Internet memes introduced in 2017 and we more than a third through 2017. So at a guess let's say we end up with 20 or so articles in that category (which seems a reasonable number of articles for a category like that). This one will be one of the twenty, and rightly so, just based on coverage so far (assuming there isn't a meme explosion on the latter part of the year).

Yes I get that it is recent. Sometimes things happen fast. That is why nominator's statement "The page was created too soon for a significant coverage to appear" isn't accurate. Significant coverage appeared very quickly. The argument that I think you want to make is "Well, but who knows if this has staying power? Maybe it is ephemeral" Sure maybe, but it your crystal-ball gazing to say "This highly notable event will be unnotable in 20 years". You don't know that. Notability, once established in the historical record, is hard to erase. Yevdokim Zyablovskiy (1763–1846), once notable, is now utterly forgotten. So? Keeping a record of stuff that has been forgotten is part of our remit.

Update, here is the Hindustani Times out of New Delhi coming on line. The Boston Globe and CNN have also picked this up -- again, extensive full-length articles, not passing mentions.

Nomination is completely out of order, to be honest. WP:GNG Notability is established beyond any doubt. Only argument for deletion is "may become unnotable in the future" and I suggest a nomination be made when and if that does happen rather then nominating on the guess that it might happen. Herostratus (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if Trump sneezed during a speech, there would be at least three major newspaper sources covering it. There's (rightly) no coverage of press memes from earlier, such as Trump referring to Chuck Todd as "Sleepy Eyes". Both WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON are reasons to delete this article independent from "notability" concerns. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you've read WP:TOOSOON or know anything about it beyond its title, you know that WP:TOOSOON simply says "If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered". That's not the issue here. There are plenty of sources. The essay actually says the opposite of what you seem think it does... Herostratus (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, any coverage within 24 hours is effectively a primary source; it's too soon for a secondary source to exist on the topic. Perhaps WP:TIND is what I should be referencing. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Well, IMO the primary sources for a meme are the meme-carriers itself (tweets, mostly). Articles about this in Time magazine and the Atlantic and the New York Times and... well, a lot of people. RT (Russia Today) has lit up, along with the Irish Times and there's already lot of Indian coverage, and of course Australia. Lots of areas like non-Anglophone Europe, and Africa and East Asia, we're still waiting to see. Anyway, these are secondary sources. I mean, OK, it's been 24 hours, so are they good now? We're already seeing further-downstream references in the new section "Spread to political discourse".

Yes, OK, I read Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Yes, that's more like it. It's good advice. It's an essay with reasonable point of view which I can see paying attention to. My judgement in this case is that's it a service to reader to bring this article on line fairly quickly, since people do turn to us to get a quick overview of notable things. It's a judgement call. I notice that that essay also has a section "View two: Don't rush to delete articles"... I would say that this article is notable right now. Down the road, it may have to be edited quite a bit, depending on how things shake out in the longer term. Another 2017 meme article, Nevertheless, she persisted, is continuing to evolve. So we'll see.

Compare to 2017 meme San Escobar. That also was created with a couple days of the event. It seems a worthwhile article. That event was in January. So I don't know. But President Trump is far more notable in the Anglosphere than the Polish Foreign Minister. But maybe that article should also not exist... I would not be surprised to see someone, six months from now, writing something referencing the glowing orb in a major paper. In that case we should have this article so people can look it up. It's possible that this will drop off the edge of the table, that is true. We'll know more before the AfD is out. Possibly waiting on the AfD should have been done. And yeah 10-20 years from now, it might be very obscure. Might be. But we already have a lot of articles on extremely obscure topics that are far less well documented than this -- random hills, chemical compounds, extinct beetles, 18th century sailors, and so on -- and this is considered OK. Herostratus (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely support keeping Nevertheless, she persisted. I would probably support a second AfD on San Escobar. Perhaps it will be clear which category of meme this is by the end of the week. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I agree that Nevertheless, she persisted clearly has legs that put it in a higher category; I'm not trying to tie this article to that one. To some degree its a matter of taste, I suppose. I mostly write serious articles about serious subjects, but I've done a few meme articles and I don't mind us documenting memes. Even if it doesn't have legs it's already notable. I have no problem if Category:Internet memes introduced in 2017 grows to a dozen or more, in which case this maybe ought to be one. We're a large encyclopedia and serve a wide audience. This article is much better documented than... I just hit the "random" link ten times, and this article is far more extensively documented than any of them, and longer than nine of them... and possibly more notable than any of them. An actor, a person who was "the keeper of several lifeboat stations", several extremely obscure bugs... a Polish village with a population of 255... Yemeni political party, that is more notable. We sure have a lot of obscure stuff here. Doesn't bother me. Herostratus (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Not only is the article is extensively cited, it speaks to the optics which can befall an international presidential journey, and it is a spectacular meme in its own right. kencf0618 (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - It is just news. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A perfect example of WP:NOTNEWS.LM2000 (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, reading pages pointed to rather than than just relying on their titles is recommended. We just went over this with WP:TOOSOON which essentially says "wait until there are reliable sources"... OK here is what WP:NOTNEWS says: "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events", although "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion", and then it drills down with four bullet points. #'s 1 (no original reporting) and 3 (we're not a Who's Who) and 4 (we're not a diary) pretty clearly don't apply, leaving #2 as the only possibly germande guidance. It says

Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information.... Wikipedia is also not written in news style.

I mean, it's fairly general... "most' newsworthy events do not qualify... including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate", so it's not a blanket proscription against recent events. And then the example, the only example, it gives of the kind of stuff we don't want is "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities", which has nothing to do with this article... It does say "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events", which, fair point. Enduring notability is difficult to know, nor is guidance given over whether "enduring" means 1 year, or 10, or 100... 2017 Manchester Arena bombing now exists and that is event is even more recent than this one. If WP:NOTNEWS applies to this article it probably applies to that one too. In ten years which of these two events will be more notable (outside Manchester)? It is hard to say... essentially citing W:NOTNEWS proves nothing, and can be countered with WP:NOTPAPER which says there's "no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover"

Jimmy Carter rabbit incident is averaging 334 pageviews over the last nine months, and that was almost 40 years ago. For some reason there was a spike to 4,250 views on March 6th -- probably in response to a mention somewhere. Is this article going to average 334 page views with an occasional spike 40 years from now? I don't know. Maybe. Probably. The rabbit incident was pretty obscure. 40 years ago is someone going to write "this reminds me of the Trump orb thing", sending readers looking for info here. Which they won't get if we delete it.

It comes down to opinion and one's idea of what we are trying to do here, really Your opinion is that we should provide readers less information than we do, at least in this case. OK. Fair enough. Honestly, though, I wish when good articles like this are deleted we could at least replace them with a banner, something honest like this:

Hi, I see you're looking for information on [subject]. We could have an article on this subject. In fact we did have an article on this subject, a nice one. But we deleted it! Because, while we are here to provide information, we don't think you should have too much information. We hope your Google search for information on this topic is successful, though!

I don't see the upside to deleting it in the first place, though. I would like to see one person explain to me "It would be a service to our readers and enchancer their experience here if, when looking for information on this topic they find nothing, because _________". What goes in the blank? Herostratus (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Because it is an editorial decision of an encyclopedia. Having too many unnotable fluff or vanity pages would make finding compact and useful information more challenging. Deleting excessive Trump-related articles is useful in that regard. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Ceosad (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of one article doesn't impinge on accessing others. The existence of this article doesn't make it harder to get to Corneal-cerebellar syndrome, which has two (or four) special-interest references and averages 1 reader a day. This one has 30 notable general-interest refs and is averaging 7,800 views a day. I don't go after that article, obscure as it is, waving WP:NOTTEXTBOOK or whatever, because the Wikipedia is a big project and big encyclopedia with many readers with a very wide range of interests and needs. We're a team here. Herostratus (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see enough to pass Wikipedia:GNG, which contradicts the reason for nomination. Isingness (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom; Ask youself this question: Do you seriously want Wikipedia to be a chronicle of every 15 minutes of his presidency and make Trump unavoidable on even Wikipedia? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked no one was required to read the article if they don't want to. Herostratus (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; yes it's been covered many times by reliable sources. MB298 (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless there's some roundup article of trump Trivia for it to be merged to - on its own I think it's a little too fine grained. Alternatively is there an article for the fakey looking mission control thingummy it's a part of? Perhaps that should have an article. Artw (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On review, and it's hard to believe I am saying this, weak keep, as the article appears to be strong enough to stand on its own merits. Would not object to a merge to Global Centre for Combating Extremist Ideology if that ever gets an article. Artw (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep "as it is not clear if this meme will become a notable one"- guess again, it is! :-) Notable event, and now referenced with it's own Meme. Seems to have enough to pass Wikipedia:GNG. Possibly substantiated from it being a rather bizarre, visual meme, but also in the context of the actual event. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unfortunate photo op / nn meme. No lasting significance or societal impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is the gift that keeps on giving. Bearian (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the aforementioned rationales, I am tired of seeing garbage tier memes and WP:RECENT flooding this website.--Catlemur (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh. With all due respect, who cares what you're tired of? I don't go after your articles such as Macedonian Mule Corps on the grounds that it is about a profoundly obscure gaggle of illiterate flea-bitten mule skinners from a backwater of the Empire carrying soup cans for a doomed army on a forgotten front in a stupid war, do I ? This is not even considering Düsseldorf Cow War ("Casualties: 2 Civilians + Herd of Cows") and so forth.

I don't go after those articles because it's a big project with a lot of editors interested in a lot of different things, and a lot of readers with a lot of different interests and information needs. FWIW this article is averaging 3,500 page views a day even though it's not indexed, while Düsseldorf Cow War is averaging 2. We are supposed to be a team, and how about you work on articles that interest you, and I'll work on articles that interest me, and together we will build the world's greatest encyclopedia. Herostratus (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Herostratus: Did you even read the articles before leaving this comment? "The Corps were dissolved in March 1919, by that time 12288 men had served in the unit or approximately 20% of the Cypriot male population between the ages of 18 and 39". As for the Cow War it was a major political event, however it seems that the internal politics of the Holy Roman Empire are simply beyond your comprehension. What did you expect? Of course people have a craving for dumb memes instead of military history. I refuse to follow your sophisms and help turn this place into some sort of Huxleyan meme dump spiced up with clickbait. Content that interests you does not belong here, there other websites where your expertise would be more than welcome.--Catlemur (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read the articles, no; I scanned them. I didn't read them because I'm confident that they are useful articles, just as this one is. Call me crazy, but I even believe that articles such as Pachytegos (one barely-referenced sentence about some extinct and forgotten lifeform) have a place here. Why not? What you don't seem to understand is that the existence of one article does not not impinge on another. We are not limited to 40 bound volumes where one article pushes out another. Even if articles like this draw readers whom you personally would cross the street to avoid, so what? It's no harm to the project. The attitude "I think my articles are great -- history, yay! -- but I'm going to try to delete your articles -- current events (or moth taxonomy, athletes, villages with 42 inhabitants, individual buildings, chemical compounds, whatever), boo!" -- just leads to the war of all against all. There's no upside that I see, and "You kids get off my lawn" is not an actual argument. Herostratus (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation of WP:NOT. Lets end it at that.--Catlemur (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Speed74 (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Riyadh Summit 2017 is a potential merge target, though that article may have its own issues. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because none of the alleged policy-based reasons for deleting stand up to scrutiny. It can beggar belief sometimes what the media chooses to make notable, but it is what it is. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball. Andrew D. (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not Know Your Meme. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, but on the other hand Category:Internet memes has 712 articles plus 13 subcategories with hundreds more -- so, along with being a gazeteer of populated places, a compendium of obscure historical events, a list of moth species, a database of comic book characters, an atlas of landforms, a collection of chemical compounds, a biographical dictionary, and very much else, maybe it is a documentary compilation of 21st century cultural nonsense. Oh well. It's a large publication, that's for sure! Anyway, if you're against this -- not sure why you want to pick on this subject and not get to work clearing out the articles on ultra-obscure lichen species, but whatever -- I don't know if picking out this article, with 39 refs to in-depth coverage in many of the more famous publications in international news journalism, would be the place to start. Herostratus (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article just looks ridiculous. I would not be opposed to mentioning the meme in a section within an article related to the event at which the photograph was taken. Adlerschloß (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Riyadh Summit 2017 would be the most suitable one for a Merge, considering that we do not have an article for the Global Centre for Combating Extremist Ideology (Etidal). That would be fine for me too per WP:PRESERVE. Ceosad (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article does not "look ridiculous". It's large enough (22,000 bytes), properly divided into sections, has a couple photos, has 42 refs properly formatted of which easily 3/4 of are to substantial coverage in reliable sources. It's written in acceptable prose, describes facts properly, and each fact is tied to a reliable-source ref. There's no apparent bias, no BLP violations, easily meets WP:GNG... what more do you want? It looks like something that could at least be considered to begin to approach Wikipedia:Good article criteria.

I think what you probably mean to say is the subject of the article is one that you, personally, do not care to read about, which is a different thing. My go-to in these WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments in this discussion is to say "I don't read your articles but I also don't try to to delete them". You don't write many articles -- you do other things around here, extremely needful and useful things I am sure, and thank you for service -- but looking at your last one, I could critique it pretty seriously, but I won't.

So maybe a good compromise here could be, I won't make you read Trump orb, and you won't make me read Beth Kelly, and we'll let them stay in place for those readers who do want to read them. Sounds like good plan for building a large and comprehensive encyclopedia, to me. Herostratus (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry Herostratus, but many of your arguments seem to imply that notability is mostly based on the fact that certain other articles or topics are covered in the Wikipedia. See WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:OSE for arguments to avoid in the AfD. Certain guidelines also exist on the fact that notability is not inherited from elsewhere (Donald Trump or other memes). Ceosad (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE states that "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". So, by demonstrating that Wikipedia contains many hundreds of other similar cases, Herostratus has well-demonstrated that this notable case should be included too so that we are consistent. Other shortcuts which the nominator should be reading include alternatives to deletion and checks, which might have saved us this otiose discussion. Andrew D. (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and OSE (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) is an essay and it is only good advice if those other articles shouldn't exist either. There are well over 1,000 articles in Category:Internet memes (about 700 in the main category, 287 alone in the subcategory "Viral videos", 40 in Category:Political Internet memes, and so forth. If you want to say "we should zero all that out" then you have a valid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument -- but that'd be some heavy lifting, to get people to agree on that. If you want to say "Well, we should reduce Category:Internet memes from 1,000 to maybe 200", fine (also heavy lifting, but not quite as heavy), but in that case note that this article has 42 refs and 3/4 of those are significant coverage in reliable famous news outlets, so you'd think that this might be one of the 200 kept.

WP:GNG is a guideline, not an essay; it's not a policy but it is an important and much-used touchstone. On another mission, I just looked closely at 100 random articles. One of them had as many refs as this one, a couple had half as many. Maybe five were "better ref'd" depending on whether you define "better" as broader, deeper, more reliable, more scientific, or what. Probably not even five. I would be surprised if this article wasn't in or near our top 5% of articles that most robustly meet and exceed the GNG. So there is that. Herostratus (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Riyadh Summit 2017. This stupid Twitter meme doesn't warrant a page of its own. (Also WP:TOOSOON, etc.) Kakurokuna (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge and redirect to Riyadh_Summit_2017#Arab_Islamic_American_Summit, where it should receive only WP:DUE coverage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect a condensed version to Riyadh_Summit_2017#Arab_Islamic_American_Summit. The photo isn't going away. Explaining what the thing was is useful to our readers. But the media attention has been on the level of gag-of-the-day; no sort of consensus appears to have formed around this odd photo as metaphor or symbol.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's more than enough significant coverage to demonstrate notability, with nearly every news organization having covered it. NOTNEWS doesn't apply here, as this is scarcely "routine news reporting." Time will tell whether the coverage is lasting, but here we are, 9 days later, and there continue to be news articles written about this on a daily basis. In the last 24 hours we have articles in Time, The Hill, New York Magazine, Newsweek, AOL, Uproxx, HuffPo, and The Telegraph. Also, five European prime ministers just got together and reenacted the photograph. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 23:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete for now It is impossible to establish the notability of a media event involving the president in less than a week, or for that matter, less than a month. A textbook case of WP:NOTNEWS; come back when it is clear that anyone cared in the long run. Mangoe (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this got, and will continue to get, a lot of coverage. People want to know what those photos are about. Let's let them find the info. No opinion of the obscure cow war page. Legacypac (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone's WP:CRYSTALBALL seems to be working..... Mangoe (talk) 11:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but then it works both ways. It's famous now. Isn't it crystal-balling to say "but it won't be in a couple years"? Maybe, maybe not -- Jimmy Carter rabbit incident is is averaging 339 pageviews a day (!). So you never know. Herostratus (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this got me interested, and here's some more (all are pageviews per day over the last 90 days):

Jimmy Carter rabbit incident - 339 pageviews
George H. W. Bush vomiting incident - 221
Bill Clinton haircut controversy - 56; its just a redirect.
Dick Cheney hunting incident - 681, wow.
Binders full of women - 158
Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph - 179

For contrast the cow war is getting 2 pageviews a day. None of our rules or practices mention pageviews, but it's reasonable to look at those numbers and figure that the existence of the articles is a service to the public, and that that might matter.

FWIW This article is at 1,872, but falling fast, but of course that's artificially high. It's falling fast, but it's not indexed (has a __NOINDEX__ tag) I guess because it's at AfD. This prevents it from showing high in Google results, and so artificially (and probably massively) deflates the views -- no one can find it, which is too bad, because its highest usefulness ever is probably now, and I kind of wish people could have a waited a bit to nominate it, for that reason. Oh well.

Another thing about this article is that, unlike ever before, the current president generates something like this about every two weeks (see Covfefe comment below). It's quite a different situation. Let's see, every two weeks for four years -- that's 100 articles. Eight years, 200 articles. But lots of categories have 100-200 articles or more. But on the other hand, we have separate articles on all the moon landings, but if they were occurring every two weeks, would we still? Well actually we probably would if they were big news and got lots of coverage. It's just a fact that the current president generates "rabbit incident" type news at an extremely elevated rate, and this gets massive coverage.

If there was a major train wreck (or whatever) in the US every two weeks, probably significant coverage would drop off -- paragraph on page five, "Another train wreck". It's not happening here. We might think it's silly for this stuff to keep getting major coverage, but our job is to document what is notable, not what we think or wish should be notable. Herostratus (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"If there was a major train wreck (or whatever) in the US every two weeks, probably significant coverage would drop off." This is exactly why there is every reason to suspect that this is yet another Trump meme or "scandal" that everybody forgets about in a couple of months, like all the rest. I really don't think that the WP:CRYSTALBALLy comparisons and predictions being made in this AfD are even particularly relevant here, given how... unique this phenomenon is. The man's a ratings magnet too, so we're sure to get more pageviews than Carter's rabbit, but I've never heard of page views being a criteria for notability or inclusion before. Kakurokuna (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Comment Years from now, in Trump's apocalypse, little children will ask why did the "Trump Orb" give the three evil men the power to start the fall of society. Only you can decide, by vote, if they will have a wikipedia page to provide that answer. Vote Keep. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Above, regarding "ridiculous" -- I am not disparaging efforts of editors doing their best regarding sourcing and writing quality on a strange subject. I am saying it looks ridiculous because it is unencyclopedic. So look at what is the top news story today regarding Trump -- covfefe. Should we have a Covfefe article on Wikipedia? (Now wondering if maybe we already do, scared to search...) It seems based on news coverage in major sources describing social media reaction, it would qualify as much as this article. I would not see the logic in not having a Covfefe article if Trump orb stays, actually. Does every silly thing associated with Trump that draws silly social media frenzy that media then reports on for clicks really deserve an article? Adlerschloß (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Covfefe does exist. Unsurprisingly, it is already being discussed at AfD. Sadly WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS do not offer encompassing advice for handling social media related topics. WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL discourages rumours, but that's it. Ceosad (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTNEWS. He took a picture with an orb. The significance of the picture is nil aside from some memes that will fade (or have they already?) with RECENTISM. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS. Seriously? Trump takes picture with orb, and it merits a Wikipedia article. Also, I can think of many memes that have more notability than a stupid "orb" photo. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Riyadh Summit 2017. Information about the event doesn't need to be sanitized from Wikipedia, but there's no inherent need for a separate article about this. --Jayron 32 23:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good deal of secondary coverage from reliable sources. 44 references in article. Samboy (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unambiguous Keep per REMOVETHESTICKFROMYOURRECTUM. This magic Orb is the news story of the year. Has everyone here gone mad?( I'd like to request the Trumpkins pipe down; the adults are having a conversation.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B412:5FA5:A58C:E7D4:A132:5E0B (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anywhere Trump related we can Merge this to? There should be a catch-all article for semi-notable stuff Trump did that's not yet worthy of their own article and may never be, that all this stuff can redirect to. Gatemansgc (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the same reasoning I used at the Covfefe AfD, per "WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YEARS, maybe this should just be put on Wikinews instead? (I know WP:10YEARS talks about the content of an article, but I think it can also be applied to article subjects)". A similar sort of picture is the Ed Miliband bacon sandwich one, but that is still being talked about - here, for example. But I seriously don't think this orb will be being talked about in three years time. (I know it's a OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but still, I think it's a useful comparison). Seagull123 Φ 21:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability concern is right there in WP:10YEARS:

Furthermore, detailed stand-alone articles and lists may no longer comply with the general notability guideline, particularly the "Presumed" criterion. Content that seemed notable at the time might in retrospect violate what Wikipedia is not and other guidelines.

– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, another quote from WP:10YEARS which I think is relevant is After "recentist" articles have calmed down and the number of edits per day has dropped to a minimum, why not initiate comprehensive rewrites? Many articles can be condensed to keep only the most important information, the wider notable effects of an event, and links to related issues. ... Any detailed subarticle relating to the event may also be either merged back into the main article or deleted (this includes any article about a subject only notable for that one event).

Strong Keep OblivionOfficial (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above reasons. This is hardly a new or unique concept, just see Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph, for example. Kamalthebest (talk) 08:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Riyadh Summit 2017, or better: Create Global Centre for Combating Extremist Ideology which may actually have a real-world impact beyond funny pictures. — JFG ^talk 08:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A super doper and extremely vigorous strong delete Why have we become a suppository for every thing this man does. AIRcorn (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Seagull123. Doesn't have lasting notability. No one will care in 6 months, let alone 10 years.--v/r - TP 16:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Reaffirm my delete after relist. "Trump orb" hasn't received hardly any media coverage this week except for Snopes writing an article about whether The Simpsons predicted it. Non-mainstream media mentions in fringe websites are the top search results. This topic has died.--v/r - T P 13:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS and WP:FART. PackMecEng (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The "10 year test" relates to the tone of the writing. It is not a criteria for deletion. This article has 45 references. If the subject is getting attention from the media and from our readers, it's notable. It's not our job to tell readers they shouldn't be interested in a given subject. Any future story recounting the history of U.S.-Saudi relations is likely to mention the orb. Whiff of greatness (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Whiff of greatness: do you have a source for "Any future story recounting the history of U.S.-Saudi relations is likely to mention the orb"? To me that sounds like a classic WP:CRYSTALBALL - Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. Wikipedia does not predict the future.. Seagull123 Φ 12:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CRYSTALLBALL is about article content, not talk pages. How many talk page comments have you seen that are sourced? Use a little common sense. Whiff of greatness (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Whiff of greatness: what I was talking about was that you said this article should be kept because "Any future story recounting the history of U.S.-Saudi relations is likely to mention the orb", which is unverified speculation - if you think that is a reason for this article to be kept, you need sources for that. And your point about "How many talk page comments have you seen that are sourced?", there are many, see all these articles which use {{reflist-talk}}. Furthermore, see WP:TALK#FACTS, The talk page is the ideal place for issues relating to verification, such as asking for help finding sources, discussing conflicts or inconsistencies among sources, and examining the reliability of references. Asking for a verifiable reference supporting a statement is often better than arguing against it. (emphasis added) Seagull123 Φ 15:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast, your claim that my comment runs afoul of WP:CRYSTALL or some other guideline is not unverified. It is false. Have you no life? Whiff of greatness (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Whiff of greatness: please remember to assume good faith and be civil. I don't understand your point (could you please clarify it?) - I asked you for sources for your claim that "Any future story recounting the history of U.S.-Saudi relations is likely to mention the orb", and you have not provided any. You then proceeded to attack me more than my argument (Have you no life?). So, I ask again, do you have any sources? Seagull123 Φ 12:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 12:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 12:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep per WP:MAGICORB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B41A:A100:DD84:3986:64DE:BAC0 (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:1017:B41A:A100:DD84:3986:64DE:BAC0: that isn't a page, could you give a reason why this should be kept, bearing in mind that this is not a vote? Seagull123 Φ 16:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wow another WP:NOTNEWS event about Trump! Believe me, this does not have the long-term covfefe yet to make any claims of passing WP:GNG.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per arguments by Crocobauru. The meme has already been reused in popular culture, as the orb had become a symbol of value used in a humorous twitter argument in reaction to Trump's Covfefe tweet,[59] the article about which was kept (just like Binders full of women). -Mardus /talk 10:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not even news, and unlikely to ever meet WP:SUSTAINED. If it does somehow meet WP:SUSTAINED, then I think it should be merged into some omnibus "Trump in Social Media" article. GretLomborg (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article demonstrates significant discussion from lots of sources and they feature the topic of the article in the headlines of their articles about the article. Sagecandor (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
merge or keep with Riyadh Summit 2017, leaning more on the merge side The Verified Cactus 100% 15:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Riyadh Summit 2017. Yes, clearly, this has attracted a great deal of attention, and the orb event should receive coverage in due weight to its relative significance. However, that coverage should be in the context of the event, rather than under this meme-y name that focuses exclusively on the internet's response to the photo. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG and has coverage above the routine levels that would be disqualified by WP:NOTNEWS. Merging would be my second, less prefered option to deletion.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to Merge, as per Squeamish Ossifrage. It may have made news worldwide, but as far as I know it has been overshadowed by more notable and impact-making events in Manchester, Marawi, Kabul, Resorts World Manila, London, and more recently, Middle East.JWilz12345 (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since a sizeable number of people argued that this subject's notability would quickly fade, I think another week will allow editors to assess whether this was really the case. I'm aware that relisting a discussion with so many comments is unusual and I was contemplating how to close it but for this reason I think it will be for the benefit of the discussion. Also, since later !votes include a sizeable number of editors advocating merging instead of deleting or keeping, it makes sense to allow previous !voters to reassess their comments based on this potential third option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Al-Jazeera (possibly as state media of Qatar; possibly as independent media) speculates that the Trump orb is directly related to the current Qatar crisis. [60]. I'm striking my earlier delete vote, and now support a merge to the Riyadh Summit article. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete. All the content this is DUE is at Riyadh_Summit_2017#Arab_Islamic_American_Summit. Maybe the picture could go into the Trump article. But all this content here is just blogosphere T&A gossipy garbage... completely unserious and shallow. WP is not in the blogosphere. Jytdog (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any relevant material into a single paragraph elsewhere. We are an encyclopedia, not a depository of memes.^{[citation needed]} It duplicates what should be elsewhere. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added "[citation needed]" because in fact Category:Internet memes has over 1,000 entries, so the presumption is that, along with being a geographical gazeteer, biographical dictionary, list of fungus species, and much else, it appears that we also document 21st century human culture, including memes. Perhaps what you mean to say "I wish we were not a depository of memes" which is very different. See the difference? I well understand the sentiment "the type of person who would be interested in this article is the type of person I would cross the street to avoid", but for better or worse it's a big project and we have all manner of readers, so... Herostratus (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Riyadh Summit 2017. This is WP:NOTNEWS#2 material that generated only coverage in reliable sources for a very limited period of time. Its notability has not been lasting. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We aren't knowyourmeme.com. We don't need to document every funny meme to get a touch of third party coverage. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 17:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I voted delete above, but I think we should note that the deletion discussion for the very-similar Covfefe article resulted in Merge (which appears to have been challenged by a sockpuppet). - GretLomborg (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: It is highly representative of the current situation of Gulf politics and the broader Middle East conflict including the Syrian civil war, the crisis with Qatar, the proxy war with Iran and the role of the Trump administration in it. One of those iconic pictures which will be referenced in the future for a long time. MaeseLeon (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTNEWS does not apply, because this is not "routine" coverage, it is widespread coverage in many , and it is continuing. See [61] as recently as 7 June. Other than notnews I see no policy-based reason to delete this. It clearly passes the WP:GNG a dozen times over, and thus is notable by the only objective standard that Wikipedia uses. I could wish that events like this were not notable, but the fact is that currently, they are. Therefore, Wikipedia should include articles about them. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 La Salle College#Sports. A merger may be performed by accessing the page history. (non-admin closure) f e minist 01:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

La Salle College Athletics Club

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

Nominating despite a school/sports related article. WP:SOAPBOX, WP:PEACOCK , this sounds like a pamphlet in current shape. Has WP:PRIMARY and WP:NPOV issues and an external video link Devopam (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No WP:CCS. Domdeparis (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NORG. Promotional only article. Ajf773 (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Merge with La Salle College. The activities of the club fail WP:CLUB. First, the club only participates in inter-school athletic activities at a local level (Hong Kong), which is hardly significant on a national or international level. Secondly, I have difficulties finding independent sources on the topic, Chinese or English. If necessary, the club's achievements can be summarized in neutral terms in the La Salle College article, under the section Sports.--Dps04 (talk) 05:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge/redirect to La Salle College#Sports per Dps04 in lieu of deletion. Cunard (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- there's nothing to merge as the article does not list any 3rd party sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G5: creation by a blocked user in violation of block or ban Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rawat Mahila B.Ed. College

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

advertisement for collage Daniel0Wellby sch (talk) 08:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We actually edit clashed because I was removing the bits that were a clear advert. I'll try to do it again - it's better to remove the inappropriate bits than delete an article on a university, which is almost definitely notable. Boleyn (talk) 08:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even though wp policy states almost all colleges are de facto notable, this college is not included in these "almost all colleges". @Boleyn: A B.Ed. college is not a university. Even though it stands for Bachelor of Education, it is considered as a diploma. It is two year course of "how to teach kids". The creator has obvious COI. He created few articles related to Rawat groups. Nothing notable about this college. The content should be added in the city's article. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mostly fixed could now do with just more information. My alt nick is Daniel0Wellby_sch Daniel0wellby (talk) 06:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to closer please note this is a double !vote by the nominator. James (^talk/_contribs) 16:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable sub-unit of a larger university. De facto notability does not apply. No significant coverage found. James (^talk/_contribs)

@James Allison: it is not a sub-unit of a university. Universities are governing bodies in india. The college is affiliated to a university, that is, that particular university governs it. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Usernamekiran has quite nicely described the siutuation of B.Ed colleges.Winged Blades^Godric 17:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 08:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Românii au talent (season 6)

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

Insufficient information. Hiwilms (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify in the same way as Românii au talent (season 5) was at the same stage of completeness. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sexual assault of migrants from Latin America to the United States. Most !voters agreed that this can be merged now that a suitable merge target exists. So Why 10:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rape tree

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

Article recreated after PROD deletion a month or two back. Sources are not reliable enough to confirm this as a notable concept. The first three are YouTube videos from vloggers, not clips from reliable sources. The next is Washington Post, but it's a blog, and the mention of the "rape tree" in it is a Tea Party activist's claim that "rape trees" exist. The blog quotes the activist's claim about rape trees and then follows up with a statement about "confirmed reports of migrant women’s rape by border “coyotes"," making it look like the rape trees claim is similarly confirmed - but it is not, at least not in the article.

The final source is a claim by a local sheriff alleging that trees marked by undergarments and condoms are commonly found along coyote routes and are intended as warnings to migrant women by coyotes. He states, "we discovered that those are rape trees," but from whom? There is no indication of where his information came from, and a local sheriff testifying about illegal immigration issues is about as far from a neutral, independent source as one can get.

Please don't take this AfD wrong; I'm not by any means disputing that women are sexually assaulted by coyotes taking advantage of their situation. I am disputing specifically and exclusively the concept of "rape trees" as a notable concept that should be covered in a stand-alone article in Wikipedia. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the term "rape tree" appears to be used by the "Minuteman" type movements, not by mainstream sources, nor by the smugglers/illegal immigrants themselves. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the appearance of the term in Congressional testimony, which is legit, makes it seem to me as if this is worthy of including in the encyclopedia. Bri (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources include (added 23 May):

Nationally and locally, civilian militias have a new look [originally published as The militia next door], Williams, Lee. Sarasota Herald-Tribune; Sarasota, Fla. [Sarasota, Fla] 23 Sep 2012: A.1. "While patrolling Arizona's Vekol Valley, Sawyer said the team found a "rape tree" in the desert, a macabre trophy created by the "coyotes" who smuggle aliens. Sawyer said that after a coyote rapes a woman in his group, he will hang her underwear on the tree."
The privilege of citizenship, Klayr Valentine-Fossum, The Knox Student, Knox College, Galesburg IL., April 2, 2009. "Rape is something that could not be ignored by our camp. Not but a 15 minute hike from where we were sleeping was a site of repeated sexual violence. It was called "the Rape Tree." The tree was located down in a wash, that is, in a dry riverbed, not visible from the bank above. You have to climb down into the wash to see it. Bras and underwear hang from the mesquite's branches. And underneath at the base of the tree were pressed down clothes, blankets and backpacks. This tree had become a symbol of domination; of the power a coyote has over the group."
The Watch, Fox, Lauren. U.S. News & World Report; Washington (Jul 2013): 1. "As they make their way around the heavy brush, they circle around a pile of women's undergarments, which lay at the foot of a tree. In sections of land near the US-Mexico border, this is known as a "rape tree.""

Your first source quotes someone claiming to have found such a tree, but does not indicate that the newspaper ever followed up on this claim or attempted to fact check the statement. Your second is student journalism, which again shows no indication of any fact-checking. "...a site of repeated sexual violence. It was called “the Rape Tree.”" By whom? When? Third source does seem to meet WP:RS per a quick search of the WP:RSN, but again, I question the credibility of their facts in this case - it's all quotes from "border watch" people with no apparent follow-up or scrutiny. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The term "Rape tree" is being used in multiple news reports including Washington Post, congressional testimony, government officials (see the YouTube videos.) Perhaps the resolution to this dispute is the add a section to the article noting that the existence of "Rape trees" is disputed. FYI: I am editor who recreated the article.WSDavitt (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. Artw (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources looks ok. The term is obviously used. BabbaQ (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (changing iVote to Delete or redirect, see below.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)) for lack of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Coverage such as the Fox News clip linked form youtube in the sources conflate the fact that human traffickers rape the vulnerable women they lead across the border, with the assertion about rape trees. Smugglers are abusive. Trees, panties, and rape exist. The problem is that sources do not support the assertion that rape trees exist. Note that although term is cited to the Washington Post what the Post actually printed was this comment: “Take a look at the rape trees in the Arizona desert. When women come, they’re told to bring plenty of condoms, because ‘you’ll be raped,’ and the trees are covered with women’s underwear and condoms,” the comment was made by "a tea party activist from northern Virginia, referring to confirmed reports of migrant women’s rape by border “coyotes,”as the human traffickers are known." Got that? WaPo confirms that women are raped by coyotes, it does not confirm that "rape trees" exist. And the activist making the assertion is in Virginia. She does not assert that she has seen a "rape tree." The 2014 Reuters article on the page does refer to rape trees. The National Geographic article is only an assertion cited to an individual resident of the border area. That is the sum total of sourcing to major media in article the rest is blogs and youtube. So I ran a gNews [62] search turns up only Brietbart, [63] in which "a human trafficking investigator" asserts that "rape trees are a common practice in this area,” " and Brietbart affirms that "These coyotes usually remove an article of clothing from the female they rape and they tie it tightly to a tree—a rape tree." PJ Media claimed to have found such a tree in 2013, However the sole evidence offered is a photo posted on the Facebook page of something called Texas Border Volunteers. PJMedia continues, "Rape trees have been known of since at least 2009, but they tend not to feature in any discussions of comprehensive immigration reform." [64]. This seems to be true. I see no substantive support for the existence of rape trees in reliable sources. WP:NOTSOAPBOX.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This goes back to my meta question about what the purpose of this debate is. Determining that it is a term used in RSes with a reasonably complete definition is, I think, the point. "The existence of X" really shouldn't be the subject of a deletion debate. WP:NOTTRUTH kind of makes your agonizing about whether RSes were correctly or incorrectly interpreting the Texas paramilitary group's claims, moot. Bri (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This article makes a very big claim. Big claims require heavyweight proof. The evidence here is mere handful of news stories the best of which merely quote an individual law enforcement officer, border-zone rancher or political activist who asserting that a bra hung from a tree is an example of a "rape tree." There is a vibrant Spanish-language press on each side of that, not to mention the vibrant outlets for women's rights and anti-sexual abuse journalism. The question I keep asking myself is: If a story this dramatic is is real, why isn't there more media and better coverage????E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This scholarly author asks the same question. Johnson, Jennifer L. (2014), "Border granny wants you", in Nancy A. Naples; Jennifer Bickham Mendez (eds.), Border Politics: Social Movements, Collective Identities, and Globalization, NYU Press, ISBN 9781479858170, in which the author states she "could not find a single academic reference" discussing rape trees, yet they are commonly discussed in the conservative blogosphere, and do profoundly affect attitudes and behavior on the southern U.S. border. - Bri (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY any editor arguing Keep on the basis of the Congressional Testimony needs to establish that the individuals giving the information on these trees are recognized experts on the border and offer proof (after all, anybody a Congressman invites can testify, Sissy Spacek can testify about farming [65], that doesn't make her statement RS). But even if the testimony is valid, it is insufficient to establish NOTABILITY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is the standard that the article has to be about an actual, notable phenomenon, or whether the public discussion of the phenomenon is in and of itself notable? I think the latter, which is why we have articles about mass delusions, legends, hoaxes, cryptids, etc. Which is why I brought up Congressional testimony. I don't care for the purposes of this debate whether the testimony was true or not, only that the venue itself gave it notability. - Bri (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is laid out at WP:GNG.@Bri:.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds pretty fringe. I have raised the matter at WP:FTN. Artw (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is hopelessly biased under this title. The phenomenon isn't notable as an urban legend; as an actual phenomenon it should be at most a single paragraph in the controversy section on Coyotaje. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The argument is biased" is WP:SURMOUNTABLE, not a valid reason to delete. Bri (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to reply to the rest of my argument? Power~enwiki (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. I added some sources to my comment above. So now in addition we have two very mainstream sources: a page-one regional newspaper and a page-one U.S. News & World Report story using the term and explaining what it is in detail. Good enouh for me. - Bri (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the USNews article mentioned by Bri [66]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting The U.S.. New article is written by a journalist who is being shown the border area by members of the "Texas Border Volunteers", and who show her a "rape tree." Yes, U.S. News goes with the story, but, no, the journalist doesn't have an evidence that it is a "rape tree" beyond the opinion of the Border Volunteers. To me, it looks as though what we have is a small media flurry around an appealing allegation about a group of criminals who exploit, abuse and abandon illegal border crossers to die in the desert. Maybe the y do advertise on rape trees. Pretty hard assertion to prove, though.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That one does seem to be a bit more of a substantial mention than your other sources, though I've no idea if that publication meets the standard of WP:RS. On matters of substantial import we probably shouldn't be using random news sites nobody has ever heard of before. Artw (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We already have too many references, we don't need pointless arguments asking for more. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stands is spammed with all kinds of refs, but If you subtract the low quality or insubstantial sources there are not really enough to support an article. Artw (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bri, you can help your case by removing unreliable sources (I took a few such out just now,) User:Power~enwiki piling up citations to unreliable sources as was done here (spam) is amateurish. If a topic is notable, there will be WP:RS providing WP:SIGCOV and editors should stick to them. The sourcing on this article is a sort of red flag indicating that scholarly validation of the topic and quality investigative journalism does not exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ginormous quotes probably need to go too, if we take it seriously as an article. Artw (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, although I did not mean to imply that it should be kept.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the comment about me needing to remove non reliable sources. If you are referring to Knox College's student-run newspaper, it may be an RS. Per RSN discussions (March 2017, October 2009, etc.), student newspapers may be RSes. I'd rather leave it for consideration. Bri (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. A modicum of RS does appear to exist, but per GNG, there is insufficient substance to justify a standalone article. I would suggest incorporating it into the Coyotaje article, as previously suggested. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 22:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~As nom I am open to merge & redirect. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)~~ struck, see below for comment re: better M&R target. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to coyotaje.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. It's just not strong enough to merit a page, makes more sense to place it in the context of Coyotaje which actually discusses the topic, and lose 'in popular culture' which as fiction has no relevance there. Mramoeba (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment if the keel argument is that this is worth covering as a piece of conservative mythology then WP:TNT probably applies, since it isn't in the slightest covered that way at the moment. Artw (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT is for "hopelessly unsalvageably" articles, usually either massive copyvio, or polluted by some kind of COI. Even articles created by undisclosed paid editors rarely fall into this category. I don't see how a four-paragraph article with multiple valid sources can be described this way. If you think it should be described as mythology then by all means add a statement to that effect, of course, backed up by RS. - Bri (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need just a statement, it (if kept) needs a full rewrite to make it clear that as far as all sources have indicated, it is an unproven allegation primarily linked to minuteman/borderwatch type movements, with no confirmation from any independent sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I added some info to the article. My research indicates that some people believe rape trees are "real," and other people believe that they are instead a fiction used to fuel an agenda. The sources I provided are books and are reliable sources. The congressional testimonies are also reliable. I'd rather that people searching for a topic like this find a neutral POV article on Wikipedia describing it. The material I added makes it clear that the claims are coming from a particular source and are most likely being used to create an agenda. I think that's sufficient. There's no reason to TNT the article. Improve it like I did if you are unhappy about it. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge and Redirect to sexual assault of migrants from Latin America to the United States (just created, and mentions this subject) - When I first came across this AfD, saw the sources, and did a search for my own, it seemed like a neologism intended to make a political point (e.g. "Consequences of an Open Border") rather than a subject that we need a stand-alone article about. There's enough coverage for me to support something other than deletion, but it's clearly a relatively small element of a much bigger subject -- sexual assault of women crossing the border. I was surprised that I couldn't find an appropriate merge target that dealt with that subject. Coyotaje is sort of related, but the sexual assaults are not the sole domain of the smugglers, and I would argue are not best covered as part of that article regardless. So I started a draft of sexual assault of migrants from Latin America to the United States, and I would like to invite other editors to improve it. I don't even know that the title I chose is the best, but it seems like too important a subject for us only to cover in the coyotaje article or via "rape trees". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging AfD participants to see if this possibility changes your opinion: @Premeditated Chaos, Power~enwiki, Bri, WSDavitt, Artw, BabbaQ, E.M.Gregory, DoctorJoeE, Mramoeba, and Megalibrarygirl: — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)This is a a much better merge & redirect target than coyotaje, I think. We can make mention of your article in the coyotaje article and then fully discuss the topic in its own article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge and Redirect to sexual assault of migrants from Latin America to the United States. This is a much better way to handle the topic! Kudos to Rhododendrites for putting the article together. The redirect is important, too, because like I wrote above, I want people finding neutral, reliably sourced information about topics like these. I've struck my keep since I agree it's a better fit for the new article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment currently the article has no inbound links, so I am not sure a redirect is really needed. Artw (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with selective redirect, merge to sexual assault of migrants from Latin America to the United States. I do think a redirect is useful, since this is a likely search term.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge/redirect to sexual assault of migrants from Latin America to the United States per above - and thanks to Rhododendrites. Neutrality^talk 00:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively merge and redirect to sexual assault of migrants from Latin America to the United States, the new article created by Rhododendrites which takes a much better approach than the existing article. "Rape trees" is a potential search term so a redirect is appropriate, but they are only a small aspect of the notable topic which Rhododendrites has identified. EdChem (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect to sexual assault of migrants from Latin America to the United States as suggested by Rhododendrites and others (!vote changed). As long as substantial content is preserved this is fine. Bri (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After three relists I'm calling this a delete, but a damned weak one. There is only one delete vote other than the OP. But the sole Keep was also a weak vote and predicated on a lets wait and see if there are any Russian sources. A subsequent comment by a Russian speaking editor indicates there are not. Still if someone wants to discuss this drop me a line on my talk page. If not for the weak keep vote I'd call this a soft delete as a de-facto expired Prod. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Virezoub

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

Over the top promotion for non notable musician. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Sourced to primary and shops. A search found nothing better although my Russian is lacking. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The need to examine Russian-language sources suggests that there may be enough content to justify a keep. Article needs work and is not well-written, but content is not the same as notabiity. I'd hesitate to delete until someone who can read Russian looks at this; I googled the cyrillic name and obtained additional hits, but could not assess content as I cannot read Russian. Montanabw^(talk) 04:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw. Can you point to a few you think might be ok. My searches came up with nothing that seemed good. duffbeerforme (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read Russian, but there were some cyrillic entries that didn't look like facebook or wikipedia mirrors. I'm not going to the mat on this one, but I don't want to have a western-bias here and prefer to err on the side of caution at AfD. Perhaps we can locate someone who reads Russian to do a skim. Montanabw^(talk) 22:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My search for "Ольга Вирезуб" got zero hits. Without quote got a bunch but Ольга and Вирезуб are both relatively common separately causing those hits. "Ольга Яковлевна Вирезуб" got two pages, all basically wikipedia. None that looked like they might be good. Factiva only came up with a business registration. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not one I'm going to the mat on, whatever the consensus becomes, I can live with the outcome. Montanabw^(talk) 02:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources at all other than wiki clones in English and German. No longer a penguin (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – http://www.klassika.info/Komponisten/Virezoub_Olga/index.html is not a Wiki clone; that entry alone convinced our German colleagues to keep her article in August 2008. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A listing is not "Significant coverage" per WP:GNG and I don't see anything on the listing itself to suggest that she passes WP:NMUSIC. All it does is confirm that she does exist and is, in fact, a composer. No longer a penguin (talk) 08:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow someone speaking Russian to take part in the discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on relisting As duffbeerforme already pointed out, these are no Russian sources to look at (I speak some Russian), a search for her name in Cyrillic brings up nothing at all (except wikipedia) when searching for a full string. When searching for Ольга Вирезуб without quotes, you do indeed get a lot of sources in Cyrillic, but exactly 0 seem to be about her. Olga is a common name, while Virezoub is a fish. No longer a penguin (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This discussion has received ample input, and no consensus for a particular action has emerged. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ovolo Hotels

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

Purely promotional material. A WP:BEFORE indicates a dearth of reliable sources. The sole coverage is from blogs, zines, storefronts, and tabloids; a complete lack of depth or WP:PERSISTENCE in coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A7 material while also manages to be spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable at all.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 00:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not really sure about the rules here. Am I allowed to participate in the survey if I have recently edited? Anyway, although I agree there isn't strong evidence of notability, I'd like to say that it's not entirely true that Ovolo has only been covered by "blogs, zines, storefronts, and tabloids." It has received significant coverage from News Corp's broadsheet The Australian, trade news org Hospitality Net and Hong Kong thinktank and media org EJ Insight. It was also featured in a CNN trend piece on sharing economy crossover in the hotel industry. I believe there may be some potential for this article. See References for the links. —A L T E R C A R I ✍ 18:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several sources were added to the article and some expansion occurred on 19 May 2017‎, which occurred after the nomination for deletion and delete !votes above. Relisting to allow time for source and article analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, this seems solely made for promotional purposes. There's an article on wikipedia about the owner this page links to, Girish Jhunjhnuwala, which seems like it was also created to further the promotion. Seems like it should get a deletion nomination as well. Scriblerian1 (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this article should stand as a relevant entry towards WikiProject Hong Kong. The company is a notable business in the territory as referenced but I agree the content should be made more neutral akin to other hotel articles on the site like Ace Hotel or Aloft Hotels.Gamserman (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Not only is it not notable, the article also appears to be promotional. XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 03:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This GNews search shows that the hotel chain has been receiving persistent coverage in various travel news and business news sources which brings it past the threshold for inclusion. Deryck C. 11:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Rajiwdekar, Reshma (2016-09-12). "The prettiest addresses in Sydney: Ovolo Hotels". Elle. Archived from the original on 2017-06-01. Retrieved 2017-06-01.
2. Kroslakova, Katarina (2016-02-16). "Ovolo Sydney gives city convenience, privacy and spectacular views". The Australian Financial Review. Archived from the original on 2017-06-01. Retrieved 2017-06-01.
3. Leung, Hannah (2015-12-25). "Ovolo Hotel launches Hong Kong's 'live-in' coworking space". e27. Archived from the original on 2017-06-01. Retrieved 2017-06-01.
4. Otley, Tom (2016-01-02). "Sydney's 1888 Hotel joins Ovolo Hotels". Business Traveller. Archived from the original on 2017-06-01. Retrieved 2017-06-01.
5. Cubbin, Nick (2016-01-07). "Ovolo Hotels open in Woolloomooloo and Darling Harbour". Australian Gourmet Traveller. ACP Magazines. Archived from the original on 2017-06-01. Retrieved 2017-06-01.
6. Springer, Kate (2017-02-13). "Smart business hotels where work meets play". CNN. Archived from the original on 2017-06-01. Retrieved 2017-06-01.
7. Pao, Jeff (2016-01-07). "HK-born Indian entrepreneur builds hotel empire with a bold bet". Hong Kong Economic Journal. Archived from the original on 2017-06-01. Retrieved 2017-06-01.
8. Allen, Lisa (2014-06-05). "Snapping up waterfront hotels". The Australian. Archived from the original on 2017-06-01. Retrieved 2017-06-01.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ovolo Hotels to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the coverage listed above is either routine ("Sydney's 1888 Hotel joins Ovolo Hotels") or advertorially oriented ("Ovolo Sydney gives city convenience, privacy and spectacular views"). Does not help meet WP:CORPDEPTH, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree "Sydney's 1888" doesn't constitute deep coverage of Ovolo, "Ovolo Sydney" (which you described as advertorially oriented) is not an advertorial, just positive coverage (from a noteworthy independent source, no less) which is a legitimate demonstration of significance.—A L T E R C A R I ✍ 22:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The original version was somewhat promotional, but even it lacked the usual elements of a promotional hotel article: lists of amenities, boasts about size and restaurants and visitors, praise of the beauty or convenience of the location,. . The current version is not promotional --it's as baldly descriptive as you can get, and Id add back the list of locations. In general, I consider most hotel chains are likely to be notable. The sources in the article are very weak, those found by Cunard are somewhat better. The one which looks like it might be good but is not is CNN--a collection of outrageously promotional blurbs for multiple hotels. If I thought the firm not likely to be notable, I could start challenging a few of the others. Since I think it is, I give them the benefit of the doubt. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be enough RS to establish notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 08:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Sargent

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

Article does not fufill requirements of WP:NFootball or WP:GANG Wolfmalfoy (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article does not fufill requirements of [[WP:NFootball] or WP:GANG. The subject of the article is an underaged athlete who has yet to sign a professional contract or play in a professional or senior national team match. The article was created in response to recent press coverage of the subject's performance in a youth tournament and there has not been widely spread coverage of the subject outside of this. The article is therefore inappropriate at this time.Wolfmalfoy (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Scoring at a youth tournament is WP:BLP1E. GiantSnowman 11:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There are citations in this article dating back to at least 2016, so WP:BLP1E is not an appropriate basis to delete. CUA 27 (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This footballer fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Fbgpwns5277 (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – he passes GNG Joeykai (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sargent clearly passes WP:GNG. He is notable. Stating that the article was "created in response to recent press coverage of the subject's performance in a youth tournament" or just because Sargent "scored in a youth tournament" is pure ignorance about the subject in question. Sargent have been a standout for while now and his life and career have been widely covered by media. The article includes several sources and in a quicky search on google any one can find much more. Articles on Sports Illustrated, The Washington Post and Goal, for example. Sargent on Google.--SirEdimon (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Strange that the nominating editor's account is only 20 hours old with six edits primarily focused on .... Josh Sargent. Hmlarson (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question for admins Does that seem typical of a brand new editor? (cc GiantSnowman)? Hmlarson (talk) 01:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, it's an account created only to nominate this article for deletion. Really strange.--SirEdimon (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It has a lot of sources but looking at them, a few are just match reports and squad selection articles, two of them are "Five things you need to know" which can be done with any player, and some of the sources are not that reputable like the St. Louis soccer website. The only source that makes me believe he could be notable now is the one from US Soccer where he is the youngest scorer in the U20 World Cup but that is it and not enough in my eyes to see him as notable right now. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out: Top Drawer; SI; S&S; Goal.com;--SirEdimon (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't make my mind up about this one, this individual has received a lot of coverage recently but most has been about his immediate recent performance and has probably been overhyped due to his age. Almost certainly WP:TOOSOON article will definitely be either recreated or expanded in the future. The subject fails WP:NFOOTY, not sure if it passes WP:GNG or not. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This footballer fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --Soccer8295 (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - Instead of merely providing a WP:VAGUEWAVE at policy, perhaps you can explain why you believe that, despite the quantity and quality of sources, this article fails to meet WP:GNG? CUA 27 (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per SirEdimon. Quidster4040 (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sargent reached another milestone. He joined Jozy Altidore (2007), Eddie Johnson (2003) and Taylor Twellman (1999), becoming one of the USA’s all-time goalscorers at the U-20 World Cup. FIFA.com interviewed Sargent about this and another accomplishments reached by him--SirEdimon (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If there were some doubt before, the article more clearly now demonstrates that it meets WP:GNG, as I've added a few citations and additional text. The article includes references to several reputable publications, both general media (Washington Post, St. Louis Post Dispatch, Sports Illustrated) and some of the more prominent national US soccer media (Goal, Soccer America). CUA 27 (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article easily passes WP:GNG with all of the sources cited. Nominator's behavior is also questionable at best. Smartyllama (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG with sources in article. Nominator does indeed look odd. Created AFD last month as first edit. Made his last Wikipedia edit 14 minutes later, and hasn't been seen since! Nfitz (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as WP:CSD#G5 (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Smooth) by K6ka.Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fierra fly

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

This has been speedy deleted six times under the titles Fly Fierra and Fly fierra (both titles are now salted). The basic argument remains the same: he's just not notable as a musician and producer. The only coverage (actually simple instances of his name being mentioned) in reliable sources stems not from his work as an artist but from a dumb prank he pulled with a couple of friends. Pichpich (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's been brought to my attention that the problems about this topic have already resulted in multiple sockpuppetry blocks. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Smooth. Pichpich (talk) 04:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 07:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G5 as the loudest duck in the world. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:35, 30 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Memphis, TN 2000

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

Live/archive album that relies entirely on band web pages. It lacks significant secondary sources. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No coverage found in independent reliable sources; appears to fail WP:NALBUM. gongshow talk 06:14, 30 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Oracle of Hi-Fi

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found some reviews/sources and adding them. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An interview can be helpful but is a primary source. It needs reliable secondary coverage to be considered notable.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would this or this work? One of the references I already included references the interview as well. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still am not seeing sources that talk about the album specifically (not just a few passing mentions). I'm all for keeping articles but if your scraping at the bottom of the barrel just to find small mentions of the album, it is probably a good indication it isn't notable enough for a standalone page.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already have included reviews on the album in the reception section. I've also found a 2003 article in Canadian Musician detailing the recording process of the album. This article is also available in EBSCO as well, and I will be adding to the article since I have access to it. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Griffin

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

Am I the only one who thinks that this page should be merged into a redirect? Sure, he's a main character in one of the most iconic animated series, but the page hardly covers any out-of-universe notability, and a majority of sections or content is unsourced, save for the Creation and Development section. And after doing research I could hardly find any official sources or news coverages on the character that are noteworthy enough to warrant an article, or any at all for that matter; when typing the character's name (or "chris family guy") into Google News, most of the coverages deal with people who just happen to have the same name as him and have no affiliation with Family Guy whatsoever. The closest sources to real-word perspective of the character I could find were the coverages concerning him dating American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift in the episode "Chris Has Got a Date, Date, Date, Date, Date", but considering that it was only a one-time thing that didn't attract much impact, I don't find the information that sufficient to consider the character iconic, despite his series being such. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if an article about a fictional character doesn't have a Reception, Controversy, Criticism, or Cultural impact section, then does that automatically mean it should be merged into a redirect? SoapSoapWhatIsSoap (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major character so meets WP:GNG. Any questionable items can be marked with a CN tag. MarnetteD|Talk 02:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note The nom is now blocked and - considering their recent edits - IMO this is a bad faith nomination and could be "speedy kept" or even "spedy deleted" MarnetteD|Talk 02:53, 30 May 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 May 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Per above. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a joke nomination, right? DP76764 (Talk) 03:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BADFAITH; blocked user who needs to spend their time doing something else than psycho-analyzing cartoon characters. Mike Baxter (Last Man Standing) could do with a look too; intricate detail for what is a bland and generic sitcom lead character. Nate • (chatter) 03:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Characters of Family Guy. Just being a major character of a long running work does not create notability. We need secondary sources that talk about the character in depth beyond just reiterating plot details. That doesn't appear to exist to a significant degree to allow a standalone article. --MASEM (t) 04:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as nomination was in bad faith. There are many more egregious cases of excessive in-universe details than this. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep There are plenty of news and scholar entries for a better-narrowed Find Sources search. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've checked through several years of that narrower search and can't find any sign of in-depth coverage of the character, outside frequent mentions of being voiced by Seth Green (which is nowhere close to sufficient GNG detail). Just because there are ghits doesn't mean they're usable sources. --MASEM (t) 05:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major character deserving of own article. Artw (talk) 06:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also appears to be a bad faith nom from a now blocked user. Artw (talk) 06:27, 30 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. Consensus is that this incident does not have a lasting impact sufficient to overcome WP:NOTNEWS concerns Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines Flight 31

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

Fails WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS. List of American Airlines accidents and incidents already lists this incident, which should suffice.

Also note that the previous AfD is unrelated to this incident. SkyWarrior 03:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. SkyWarrior 03:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SkyWarrior 03:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Contemporaneous daily news coverage in newspapers (and daily stock-price fluctuations) are not sufficient for general notability. In any case, it shouldn't have this article title; coverage under List of American Airlines accidents and incidents is sufficient IMO but I'd entertain a rename proposal. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC) (as amended)[reply]
Keep The incident involved the FBI and Air Force and was covered by many major media outlets including ABC, CNN, NBC, WaPo, and USA Today. I believe that the article is sufficiently notable right now, and will become more notable over the next few days or weeks as the story continues to develop. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 06:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep It was a passenger altercation, just like other airlines, so why delete if one article has a similar incident like this, like United Express Flight 3411, that the result was a keep? I believe that it is notable, and it should be kept.174.52.246.30 (talk) 12:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No injuries or fatalities. Just another crazy guy being stupid. Slow media day so they jump at another possible airline controversy where there is none. Story died and so should this article. WP:NOTNEWS Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to comment on this entry, please be respectful and don't bite at other users.204.113.195.150 (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And lets all assume good faith also.Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The incident received significant coverage and had a lasting impact due in part to the effect on the company's stock price, not to mention the rest of the fallout. Passes WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What effect did it have on the stock? And what other fallout? Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The incident dropped some stocks from the airline, because the flight disturbance made some people upset of the behavior of what the passenger did, and if the incident might occur in the future. Other fallout is that the Homeland security is going to monitor flights seriously and with caution.GoMan195531 (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it dropped stock, but that would happen with any incident, no matter how minor it is. That's not a reason to keep an article, and chances are good stock will recover. As for the fallout, Homeland Security is already monitoring flights with caution, as they should be, well before this incident occured. They may heighten security for a little bit, but that's typical for an incident like this. All in all, this appears to just be a run-of-the-mill occurrence that happens occasionally, no different from other incidents that people have forgot has happened. Seriously, a mention on List of American Airlines accidents and incidents is enough, and unless you can convince me otherwise, I will stand by that point. SkyWarrior 18:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are other flights which had disturbance that occurred, and this is one of them. Not a lot of these are found on Wikipedia, so I think we should keep the article, because it is notable, and might be improved more sufficient when more information is available towards the public.GoMan195531 (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS exists for a reason. Just because "not a lot of these are found on Wikipedia" is not a valid reason to keep an article. SkyWarrior 18:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Part of the real or perceived war on terror, which needs to be documented for future reference.--Petebutt (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: AS per WP:NOTNEWS, total non incident. The only reason it even made the news is the total over-reaction by authorities. - Ahunt (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no lasting impact or societal significance. Let's reserve such articles for real terrorist acts, such as the Manchester bombing. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor incident that will soon be forgotten. Notnews. MB 15:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not the type of incident worthy of a stand alone article. Samf4u (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss whether to redirect this to List of American Airlines accidents and incidents#2010s in case of deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of American Airlines accidents and incidents where possible. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 12:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. All the relevant info is already in List of American Airlines accidents and incidents, we don't need a separate article. Sario528 (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the arguments above - I see no need for a redirect either. YSSYguy (talk) 23:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unruly passenger is nothing notable. Wykx (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It think WP:NOTNEWS does not apply automatically, as there it is only written routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities, and "announcements" I understand as announcements of the planned events like sport events, or concerts. Audriusa (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It very much applies; what you stated is prefaced by the words "for example", which means it's not exclusive to just those instances. SkyWarrior 17:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This does not deserve an article it is just run of the mill disturbance Jkd4855 (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete disturbance by passengers is not that rare or noteworthy for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cascade Center

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

Sources largely have nothing to do with the center itself. No sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. It is not a hoax but does not rise to being worth an article. --Lockley (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Building is not notable for its modern use, but clearly is historically significant as the first Warner Bros theater. It was easy to find sources, such as [67], [68], and [69] - not a very thorough WP:Before. It is mentioned in Warner Bros (as the first theater), which I have now linked. I'm surprised this isn't on the NHRP. The article needs better sourcing and cleanup, not deletion. MB 05:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MB: Those sources are about the theater, not the shopping center on its site. The theater is very likely notable, but the article barely mentions the theater. I would not be opposed to an article on the theater. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The theater has been recreated as part of the complex on the same site. I don't see a reason for a different article. The current complex is the modern evolution of the historic theater. Source #1 and #3 focus on the theater. Source #2 does not. I was picking sources about the theater to emphasize the historic nature, but there are other sources like #2 about the whole complex. Anyway, the two are inter-twined and I think this article should be kept. Adding more info on the theater would certainly be an improvement. I agree that without the theater/history, this would be a [wp:mill] shopping center. The article should simply be expanded. MB 17:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The tail is trying to wag the dog. The theater is clearly notable (I might create that article myself), but the center can't inherit notability from it. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not a big fan of relisting AfDs more than twice but I think we may be inching towards a consensus here. Let's see what happens.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train^talk 15:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Stags and Athenas

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

Non-notable sports team, appropriately covered at Claremont McKenna College, Harvey Mudd College, Scripps College, and Claremont Colleges per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE James (^talk/_contribs) 02:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Notable that two colleges combine into one for athletics, but as noted above I think the info can be merged into the respective colleges' pages. Schools in the same division do not have separate pages for their athletic teams and it doesn't seem appropriate to start making them now. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spatms (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pomona-Pitzer Sagehens. James (^talk/_contribs) 16:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Stags. Spatms (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Athenas. Spatms (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 11:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on the AFD nomination itself, which points out that four separate college articles will otherwise need to cover the fact that the four colleges share a joint sports program. The article itself is not bloated, it doesn't go into a lot, but it provides a place for coverage of the joint sports teams and avoids need for repetition elsewhere. If the same material is repeated at four separate articles, then it will tend to gain inconsistencies and be hard to maintain. There is no benefit and some definite costs to the change suggested in this AFD. --doncram 04:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I am curious if you actually read any of the linked articles. Three colleges share a sports program. The fourth link is to the collegiate consortium, which would naturally contain the majority of the information on the athletic program. The three individual college pages would only need a short summary with a link to the consortium page, which could go into the appropriate detail. Regardless, your comment does not address the notability issue. James (^talk/_contribs) 15:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Bellon

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

Obvious hoax (see talk page). Was marked for speedy deletion as a hoax, but User:Uanfala has twice removed the tag, so here we are. Calton | Talk 02:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not certain whether it's a hoax or just puffery about a personal project on translation. Regardless, no claim of notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unsourced; possibly a hoax. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is not a hoax: the existence of a poet with this name is evident in the archived version of one of the two sources given in the article [70]. Now, whether the somewhat pompous claim of notability made about him is true, that's much less certain: this is sourced only to a personal blog, and as reported by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi on the article's talk page, there seems to be virtually no coverage of that on the web. – Uanfala (talk) 10:53, 30 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 keep. Merger discussions can be followed up on talk Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

88open

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

Does not meet WP:GNG Liam McM 01:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per The Alliance Revolution, Systems Integration, Computerworld, The Law of Unfair Competition Trademarks and Monopolies, Volume 3, and CommUNIXations. SL93 (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At the very least, 'The Alliance Revolution: The New Shape of Business Rivalry' seems to show this topic received several pages of prose discussion in a book, so it seems to meet GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Motorola 88000 since the sole purpose of the organization seems to be to promote that technology. Not independently notable but should be mentioned for historical significance despite failure in the long term. W Nowicki (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this meets WP:GNG as shown above. the sole purpose of the organization seems to be to promote that technology is no reason to delete an article. f e minist 15:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William A. Winder

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

Nothing here seems to satisfy WP:SOLDIER. He commanded the Alcatraz Citadel, but that article barely mentions him and an Alcatraz Military Timeline has just two minor entries about him. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article, the first one to come up if you hit the JSTOR link above, Winder ordered the Alcatraz gunners to fire a warning shot at HMS Sutlej in 1863. Actually that might be his main claim to fame ([71]). It's not mentioned in the article at present. This person here did some digging on Winder along other lines. groupuscule (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For some people there will never be much info available, but what we have is valuable, a notable figure and position on a prominent institution, should be kept.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I will add material soon, but he has a lot of coverage in newspapers. In particular, he spent a long time trying to clear his name due to his father's fame as a Confederate General, became a doctor and then an Indian Agent later in life, and after his death in Omaha, his obituary was printed in many prominent newspapers including the New York Times and the Baltimore Sun. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Secondary guidelines never replace GNG. Adequate reliable sources, over time to meet GNG. SusunW (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve. He doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER but his later life is interesting.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has been improved considerably since the nomination. Seems good enough to remain. Jupitus Smart 03:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Russell Kamp

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

No reliable sources found. The albums listed did not chart on major charts; the Americana and Euro Americana charts are not usable per WP:GOODCHARTS. Closest sources only mention him passingly. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple reliable sources exist. The article would benefit from further editing/expansion, but I have gone ahead and added references to the article to illustrate some of the coverage found. Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. gongshow talk 03:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage in PopMatters, AllMusic, and No Depression together meets WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even those arguing for merging essentially believe the content is worth preserving. At this point of time, there seems to be no consensus for such a merge but if this changes, it can be discussed at the talk pages. So Why 10:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust in curricula

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

TheLongTone (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, Twinkle rather ran away with me here. IMO this could be speedied as duplicating the topic {{Education about the holocaust]], created by the autor of this article. I'm dubious about their Genocide education as well....TheLongTone (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheLongTone, Thanks for your concern. Could you please specify why you think Education about the holocaust and The Holocaust in curricula are duplicates? Curricula is a "key component" of Education about the Holocaust, and that is articulated in the article. These articles were created as part of a project that uses Wikipedia's and UNESCO's open license/open access policies to create and improve articles. If you have any doubts as to the legitimacy of these articles, Genocide education included, please consult the cited publications. If you have any questions about the project, please consult John Cummings. Thank you. (A.mart82)

Hi, can I request nothing is 'speedied'. I don't agree they are the same subject but I don't pretend to have enough in depth knowledge of the subject to know whether it is suitable to merge this article into another or to leave as it is. --John Cummings (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Education about the holocaust. Per Wikipedia:Article size, there's no need to have a separate article on this subtopic. The style is somewhat prolix and underreferenced and could be edited down. Although the articles don't do a very good job of establishing notability, I don't think the notability of the topic is in question as it regularly comes up in newspapers etc. But I don't think education and curricula are separate topics, even though the articles have different focuses (like having articles on restaurant food and restaurant menus.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per previous. This has the feel of a not very good academic essay, not an encyclopedic article. Inevitably each country will do this differently, so that I am not sure that a worldwide synthesis is useful to have. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a large expansion of Education about the holocaust#The Holocaust in curricula and textbooks - and is not the same thing. Holocaust education is much-much broader than just school curriculum - and includes museums, documentaries, films, etc. This not short (and much expanded) article focuses on formal instruction in a school setting. "Education about the holocaust" isn't about Education in the sense of the education system - but encompasses all community outreach efforts.Icewhiz (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Reasons above, this is part of a project.TeeVeeed (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- this appears to be a reasonable split; the present article is quite large so a merge back to the target article would be difficult. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Operation Red Wings. So Why 10:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Axelson

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:1E. -- Irn (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep fails WP:SOLDIER, did not receive the second highest award for gallantry (Navy Cross) multiple times, but may possibly meet the GNG "significant coverage" requirement due to media. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of WP:SOLDIER, so I've added it to the rationale, but I think that WP:1E addresses the "significant coverage", since all of that coverage was only due to one event, and neither his role in the event nor the event itself is significant enough to merit an entire article for him. -- Irn (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and optionally redirect name to Operation Red Wings where the subject is mentioned. I note than another member of the 4-person team does not have an article; it has been deleted at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Dietz, so a delete here would be consistent with prior outcomes and with WP:SOLDIER. One of the other two members was awarded the nation's highest decoration for valour, Medal of Honor (SOLDIER#1), while the other survived and wrote a book, which was turned into a movie. Not the case here. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect name to the operation article. WP:Memorial applies. Kierzek (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 10:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Picocon

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

The article in question provides very little context or history of the convention itself (per WP:N(E)) and no references or citations outside of external links. The homepage to said event doesn't list much information and the infomrmation I have found only directs back to another user-edited encyclopedia. article on Fanlore Snickers2686 (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate - The list of guests of honour includes some very notable science fiction authors (Pratchett, Baxter...) - this itself establishes WP:NOTABILITY - however without reliable sources this article should not be included on Wikipedia. If the original author is interested, or anyone else, in continuing work on the article, including referencing, then I would support incubation until the article is of a sufficient standard to be moved into article-space. Keira 1996 04:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is not inherited. Notability of guests does not establish that the convention is notable. --ColinFine (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand inheritance. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but expand I don't think the problem here is about reliable sources (the convention webpage itself, one assumes, is reliable) but the sufficiency of sources. I would encourage more detail about the history of the convention, whether it's been referenced in places other than the Picocon web page itself, any notable incidents or appearances, etc. --khaosworks101 (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 'Keep but expand' by all means once notability has been established. The convention's webpage is a primary source, and is incapable of establishing notability. --ColinFine (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reluctantly (as I am part of that culture, though I haven't attended a Picocon). I would have been prepared to argue for Ansible and File 770 being reliable sources for this purpose, but the former mentions it only in listing, and the latter not at all. Disclosure: I have been arguing this off-Wiki with some contributors to the article. --ColinFine (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have now added in a number of references, including one from Boing Boing Net. They appear to establish this as long running convention, with A list authors/guests regularly appearing including Iain M Banks, Terry Pratchet, lots of others. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete an annual speaking panel does not make a convention, and that's all the sources/article discusses currently. I'd recommend the entire "Guests of Honour" section be deleted in any scenario; Arisia is an example of a more-notable convention with a better-written article. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep primarily on the basis of recently added sources, though I would hope that they can be bettered. Artw (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a near thing, but I'm going to opine that the GNG is adequately met with the inclusion of the recently added sources. Jclemens (talk) 05:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Action News

AfDs for this article:

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

After reviewing the sources and past discussions, I concur this does not pass WP:GNG/WP:CORP/WP:NMEDIA. It is a podcast that has generated little coverage of itself, except niche star wars fan sites and local media. They do get mention in passing every now and then, but I don't see what makes them significant (notable). I don't see any source discussing their significance or impact on the wider world, or even in Star Wars fandom. Yes, they are likely one of the more notable Star Wars podcasts (I am guessing, since I haven't found a source that says that...), but unless this is stated by a reliable, non-niche, non-local source, it is not enough. PS. My university doesn't seem to have access to HighBeam, but neither of those articles seem sufficient (passing mention/local coverage) to be sufficient to argue this podcast has received significant coverage by other media, IMHO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I see no case for this meeting GNG, but WP:NMEDIA is an entirely independent standard. The only coverage of them I can find relates to one incident in 2015 (e.g. [72] [73]). While there are technically multiple sources, they're all covering the same incident. As an online podcast, I assume any reliable sources about them would also be online; an appearance in a Star Wars documentary isn't relevant. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional page for an unremarkable podcast. No sources to meet GNG / ORG. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:40, 30 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. Having disregarded the opinion of Matthewwells55, who has been indeffed as a sock. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Silverman Gallery

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

I don't see how this comes near to meeting WP:CORP. The gallery does what all art galleries do – have shows, try to sell works of art, promote themselves and sometimes the artists, etc. The article was created by a user named Jsginfo, and appears to have been an attempt at promotion from the day it was started. We don't allow promotion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (although consider moving to Jessica Silverman). She and her gallery are widely covered in the art press and somewhat in Bay Area media. I added various sources. The content was not in the slightest bit promotional, so that cannot be a reason for deletion. It comes down purely to notability. With coverage in various publications, she passes WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a promotional entry; the Jessica Gallery is now established in the Bay Area and the entry is sufficiently referenced User:Matthewwells55 (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and GNG. The article currently has 5 sources. 4 definitely fail the criteria for establishing notability as the articles are mostly interviews/advertorials and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. The only one that looked potentially good was this one from artsy.net but turns out they're partners so also fails as it isn't intellectually independent. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as blatant self-promotion of a non-notable gallery. --Lockley (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure whether the article is about Jessica Silverman or the gallery. I'd be willing to presume notability of the gallery based on its own website (the advertorials are sufficient for existence), Jessica Silverman herself is not notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article lacks focus, it discusses both the gallery and the owner. I don't see anything that would substantiate a claim of importance or notability. The article says nothing about the gallery besides where it is, when it was founded and what it sells. Those things apply to any retail establishment, they exist somewhere, they were established and they sell stuff. As for the founder herself, that her father created an important collection of Fluxus work is immaterial, notability is not inherited. Mduvekot (talk) 04:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Rice

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject JMHamo (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:NACTOR. His roles in Trollied and Massive (TV series) are both significant and both series are bluelinked. He also has coverage in Shennan, Paddy (3 September 2013), "Boy from The White Stuff; Paddy Shennan talks to the actor who made his TV debut as a pint-sized Reds' fan", Liverpool Echo and Kendall, Paul (18 January 2009), "addendum whatever happened to... the boy from the milk advert", Sunday Telegraph Magazine 'Seven'. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I was able to find one additional independent source for the subject, but outside of that and the few sources already provided, there isn't much coverage out there. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough to show that they pass WP:GNG, and while his role in Trollied certainly was significant, his supporting role in a very short-lived tv show, Massive, I don't feel warrants a significant enough role. Without that second role, he doesn't pass WP:NACTOR, which even if he did meet, only indicates that an actor may be notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where onel5969 gets the idea that a lead does not have a significant role in a tv series. If one of two main actors does not have a significant role then who does? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meister Cook}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World of Good}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Feather}}