Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 6: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:19, 6 June 2017

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 June	7 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. So Why 09:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DJ D

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

Notability issue. Two sources are dead links (including 'DJ D' s own official website). The main source is a Dutch platform for party/events/sessions (fwiw: no Italian page on that DJ from Bergamo). (Second nomination? or was it another DJ D that was deleted in Feb 2009?)- darthbunk pakt dunft 22:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. For clarity's sake, I've looked at the deleted version and it pertained to a female DJ D from Australia rather than a male DJ D from Italy. So this isn't a recreation of the same article, but a different topic that merely happens to have the same name. That said, this article is parked entirely on primary sources, with no evidence shown of the type of reliable source coverage in media that it takes to clear Wikipedia's notability standards — and I can find no improved evidence of reliable source coverage on a Google search either. Searching on "DJ D" is virtually pointless (typical result: the dictionary definition of "DJ" as a verb whose past tense is sometimes spelled as "DJ'd" instead of "DJed"), and even his real name just brings more primary sources and hits for unrelated people. So while the article makes claims (mostly touring) that would clear WP:NMUSIC if they were sourced properly, nothing here entitles him to an article in the absence of proper sourcing to support one. Bearcat (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Bearcat's analysis is entirely persuasive. Ravenswing 01:58, 8 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. The general consensus appears that the Forbes article alone isn't sufficient for notability, while an opinion that other sources support notability, it isn't shared by participants and the consensus is that the subject fails our notability requirements. —SpacemanSpiff 12:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Id fresh foods

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

promotional article, with one possibly acceptable ref, the Forbes India. The rest are the usual notices about funding that do not show notability . DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify/Keep Current article is promotional. But Forbes, and Hindu are god sources. The subject deserves an artcle. I say chop it down to 3-4 sentences or whatever the RS permits. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company and its products are very popular in South India. Edited out the content to get rid of the promotional tone. Theaphorist (talk) 06:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little better than spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Forbes India, Mashable, and Quartz sources show notability to a wider audience than local news. Deccan Herald is a weaker source as it is local, but it's nontrivial coverage as well. The other sources seem to be promotional (e.g. ETtech) or press releases or routine coverage of registered businesses (e.g. Crunchbase), but the sources above seem to indicate non-local notability sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Promotional concerns can be fixed with editing; it doesn't seem to be a blow it up and start over case, and some editors have been working on editing for tone. Appable (talk | contributions) 16:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the company have not achieved anything significant yet, apart from raising $30M. This content can just as effectively be housed on the company web site, where it belongs. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG not met, nothing but routine stuff. Whenever I see a mention of a company's funding in a Wikipedia article, I switch off. Companies shouldn't pay people to write Wikipedia articles about them - they always turn out awful. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rude: Not appreciated. I'm the one who wrote the article. While even a non-wikian can comment about the work and content and it is totally accepted, implying someone is paid to write this article when they are the one who contributes their own personal time without any financial or commercial gain is insulting. Fundings are integral part integral part of coverage when the article is on startups, browse any startup article for that matter, majorityof the TechCrunch articles will disappear if the editor plans not to cover the funding news or announcements, they are made into news even by the most trusted media houses are for a reason. Theaphorist (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. It's an encyclopaedia. Do you really think that in ten years' time, someone is going to want to read about the amount of funding a company has? The only reason that companies add information about their funding to Wikipedia articles is to boost their profile. It has absolutely no encyclopaedic value. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essentially a spam article. Coverage is either routine or your typical PR business coverage that is frequently put out by marketing departments and published without much editorial oversight by the publisher. These don't get us to GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not by a PR or agency or by any companies department but by a fellow Wikian like you. A Google search will prove the relevance of the company. If it's about the tone of the article, why not someone volunteer to edit? Theaphorist (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:TonyBallioni did not start editing last week, and his edits are not limited to creating 2-3 entries for minor companies. Those, however, are hallmarks of a PR-hack: an editor who is paid to put spam on Wikipedia, and after few weeks will discard this account to get a new one (WP:DUCK test). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:47, 14 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 07:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One good source (Forbes India), all others are routine business coverage (rewritten press releases). Not enough to make it notable. At best, could consider userfy, maybe in few years they'll get a second good article or some awards or something. For now, WP:TOOSOON at best - your usual WP:CORPSPAM creation by a undisclosed paid editor. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Exemplo347: @TonyBallioni:: Deleted the funding section. Not just Forbes; Quartz, Mint and the citations are high quality (not sure about the Yahoo news one though). 'Encyclopedia' point makes sense, not with respect to Wikipedia though. Take any publicly listed company or startup articles in Wikipedia, most will carry financial information like Revenue, Profit/Loss etc (public company) and Funding information and investor info (for startups). Let's get into the WHY part of it. Businesses are the money making entities and its success is measured in terms of Revenue, Funding, Impact or Innovations they make. If you go by the Encyclopedia logic, no Encyclopedia will cover how much money a particular company is making or the box office collection of all movies, but Wikipedia does; maybe that's how known companies and brands are evaluated by the business world and popularity is judged by the public recognition. I also understand that none of the fellow wikians are adding a response with any personal benefits in mind and for the betterment of the Wikipedia and it's article itself. One should treat everyone with equal respect here, while anyone is allowed to share their opinion, personal or remarks about a contributor or his intentions are not welcomed. Let's wait and see the validity of "DUCK" remark, skipping the response now. My intention is not to get into name calling or personal attack here for an article which is not providing me any value other than my belief that it needs to exist. Theaphorist (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- My above comment re: the sourcing was not about you or the article, but about its coverage in the press. It reads like your standard PR/marketing churn that are typical of business publications and where the editorial oversight could be slim. Coverage like this does not get us to GNG, even after the article has been cleaned up. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @TonyBallioni: Got it. Thanks for explaining, appreciate it. Theaphorist (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    At AfD, it isn't the condition of the ARTICLE that determines whether or not it is kept. What matters at AfD is the General Notability Guideline. If the subject of an article doesn't meet that guideline, the article cannot be kept, it's that straightforward. (Oh, and it's only one !vote per editor. You shouldn't be stating "Keep" more than once or you risk both of your votes being ignored by the person who closes the discussion). Exemplo347 (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Edited to to keep one. Theaphorist (talk) 10:08, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 02:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Air India's fleet

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

WP:CFORK, details already in Air India#Fleet Sulaimandaud (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Air India#Fleet, plausible search term. Pratyush (talk) 06:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Air India#Fleet, which has more content anyway. --XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 15:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnt add any value and actually has less information then covered in the main Air India article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - our browser already goes to Air India. Bearian (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Air India#Fleet; a relatively plausible search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A redirect seems unnecessary here; the phrasing is awkward and it would be to a substring. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my knowledge, there is nothing wrong with a redirect to a substring. Pratyush (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a redirect is unnecessary, as there are no incoming links. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 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 delete. joe decker ^talk 00:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantinos Tsouvelekakis

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

Article creator contested PROD. Article is about a businessman where the coverage that exists is mainly him giving quotes about businesses or organizations he is associated with, and would be trivial coverage under WP:GNG. The article also mentions his sporting accomplishments, but these all seem to be at a youth level and don't meet our inclusion criteria for sportspeople. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Pity the article creator didn't share with us his rationale for deprodding. Ravenswing 02:00, 8 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 08:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:PROMO; note the two external links right in the middle of it:

-Monaco Economic Board -Monaco Ambassadors' Club

A malformed, spammy article; no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 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 no consensus. This is a technical non-consensus close for all these articles on the basis of S.O.'s two comment and the comment from Pichpich. They can be renominated individually at any time. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Timid Toreador

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

Whole article is copy paste from another wikia http://looneytunes.wikia.com/wiki/The_Timid_Toreador Beside IMDB is given as sole reference Sulaimandaud (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of same reason, all copied from http://looneytunes.wikia.com/:

Sulaimandaud (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Looney Toons wiki licenses] all of its works CC-BY-SA 3.0, which is a Wikipedia-compatible license (if attribution is maintained). A link to the article history there would satisfy the attribution requirement, so this doesn't necessarily need to be deleted solely on the copyvio grounds. That said, it's also not very helpful, being exclusively an unsourced plot summary with excessive detail for this project's purposes. Treating the topic on the merits, there are a few potential sources, but its debatable whether any of them constitute significant coverage; I'm neutral as to the outcome here, but a redirect to Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies filmography (1940–49) would be preferable to deletion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the proper attribution for The Village Smithy (1936 film). The copyright issues can all be resolved similarly. Pichpich (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've fixed all 6 attribution problems. The question remains: do we keep these articles separate or merge them to a common target? But this is not an AfD question since deleting is not among the reasonable options so I suggest closing this AfD. Pichpich (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Or, at least, close on procedural grounds. When I first commented on this AFD, "The Timid Toreador" was the only article listed. Because the cause for deletion here is going to come down to notability rather than copyright issues, bundling is doing more harm than good; the works will need to be considered on their individual merits. "The Village Smithy", for example, has been recognized as an early use of parody in Tex Avery's works, which might distinguish it from titles like "Porky's Garden" that are primary addressed only in comprehensive animation surveys (but that may themselves satisfy inclusion requirements). There's just no way that these can be evaluated in an omnibus AFD. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:18, 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. 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[1][2] 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 delete. czar 06:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trina Michaels

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

Nominations do not a pornbio worthy article make... Really can you call pornbio worthy. Non notable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not only passes WP:PORNBIO but also Wikipedia:ENTERTAINER, having been featured in mainstream media and is now associated with pro-wrestling. Miami Herald, GQ, Rant Sports. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:17, 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 01:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- GNG and PORNBIO fail (no awards listed, only nominations). The above coverage are trivial mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as although sources have been provided they're very poor and IMHO don't confirm notability, –Davey2010^Talk 18:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 09:49, 18 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.

First things first: Despite commonly being used as an argument, WP:GNG does not have to be met if a WP:SNG is met. WP:N is quite clear on that as pointed out by TheDragonFire when it says: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; [...]" (emphasis added). In this case, there is no consensus that she has won "a well-known and significant industry award", so PORNBIO was not met anyway, rendering the discussion moot.

However, what those arguing for keep based on WP:PORNBIO seem to have overlooked is that Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria, of which PORNBIO is a part, clearly states that those standards are mere indicators of notability, helping users to determine how an article should be handled. The actual criteria the article has to meet are mentioned in WP:BASIC which mostly mirrors GNG. Failing GNG will usually mean failing BASIC however unlike GNG BASIC explicitly allows combining multiple sources with non-substantial non-trivial coverage to establish notability, something those arguing along the lines of GNG should remember.

In this case, there were a number of sources mentioned but dismissed as merely trivial mentions at best, something that was not really disputed by those providing them (whether another user is "anti-porn" or not does not change the quality of the sources provided). Without any demonstration of "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" (WP:BASIC), deletion was the only correct outcome.

Regards So Why 16:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alektra Blue

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

Hasn't improved since last discussion. Still fails gng and consensus us has hardened against marginal/incredibly thin awards as substitutes for actual rs. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's accurate analysis and per my argument in the previous AFD. No qualifying awards. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a BLP that lacks coverage in reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets of WP:PORNBIO. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 18:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as thousands of sources online[3] thus the subject meets GNG, ~~It's a hot day here in the UK and I simply cannot be bothered to post all of the sources today however on the first 2 pages there's mentions and by the looks of it indepth coverage here & there,~~ Dunno about PORNBIO however certainly meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]

Sources aren't amazing however GNG is most certainly met. –Davey2010^Talk 19:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject here "has won a well-known and significant industry award", namely the Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award (which is basically comparable to the People's Choice Awards) for "Favorite Female Rookie", which is also similar to other well-known, major adult film award categories like the AVN Award for Best New Starlet & XBIZ Award for Best New Starlet. The fact that the award winners tied that year is pretty much meaningless, and there is no restriction against fan-based awards under our inclusion guidelines. Guy1890 (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP In addition to the significant Awards she has won, she is an icon of the industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toglenn (talk • contribs) 08:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per those above - meets GNG and PORNBIO. A couple of the external links should probably be converted to references. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:N: A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline. WP:PORNBIO superseeds WP:GNG in this case. Regardless of the content of the article (which I have deliberately not looked at), arguments made at User talk:SophisticatedSwampert against their NAC are ridiculous. TheDragonFire (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If you read PORNBIO its pretty clear that its a rough guide and that articles are still required to pass GNG. There is no evidence this does which means the trend at AFD is to give more weight to GNG then PORNBIO in close closes. So not ridiculous but thank you for your input. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AfD debate was reopened after a non-administrative closure
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So lets recap. There are assertions that this passes GNG but no sources have been adduced that actually pass the GNG. This leaves us an argument about a possible PORNBIO pass that I don't believe for an instant is nailed on and a BLP that clearly does not pass the GNG. The trend is to give GNG more weight than PBIO in close calls and there is a wider project consensus that BLPs require proper sourcing. On that basis my reading is that this is a delete. The closing admin might take a different view but evidence (not assertion) of passing GNG and evidence of the significance of the award will help. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:-Total lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources.Echo Spartaz.Irrespective of WP:PORNBIO, WP:GNG must be met.If sources are provided, I'm willing to change my opinion.And please don't rely on number of GoogleHits.Take time to check the sites too!Winged Blades^Godric 15:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I question the assertion that "Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award (which is basically comparable to the People's Choice Awards) for Favorite Female Rookie" qualifies as significant and well known for the purposes of PORNBIO. Neither do I believe that there's consensus that this award is comparable to People's Choice Award. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Editor coffman is entirely correct. The source that likened the FAME awards to the People's Choice Awards was the FAME awards' own organizers/promoters. It's a defunct award, one in a series of short-lived awards organized by AVN in hopes of generating another profitable event to supplement its primary ceremony. The FAME Awards failed, one successor, the "Sex Awards", were cancelled when a planned streaming video deal tanked, and the AVN Fan Awards haven't gained any traction and been rebooted at least once. At least two other porn performers who won the same award in the same category have had their articles deleted this year. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no sources to support the claims of notability. Particularly intrigued by an entry above claiming "thousands of sources online" and, amusingly, "It's a hot day here in the UK and I simply cannot be bothered to post all of the sources". For the latter, I certainly hope that Mr. Davey2010, was able to find himself a nice iced tea, a cool washcloth on the back of the neck, or at least a shady resting area. For the former, the google hits are to a 1) Daily Dot top 20 Sexy Snapchat list of dubious notability, 2) a seattlepi.com false positive, as the porn actress' name only appears in the image caption of slide 5/27, in a story about another woman entirely, 3) a charming tale from the Daily Fail (largely deemed a non-reliable source by this project) about a senior citizen and his sex doll (that he totally does not have sex with, he says) who is modeled after Alektra Blue. The sourcing is rather downhill from there, regrettably. TheValeyard (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I realize it may be bizarre to post the hot day thing however editors are expected to post actual sources which at the time I couldn't be bothered to do, It's better than saying "Oh yeah meets GNG" and not posting anything. –Davey2010^Talk 19:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs an analysis of Davey2010's sources; if such are not forthcoming, GNG would not be met and since PORNBIO apparently isn't either (unless someone can refute Hullaballoo [sp?] Wolfowitz's arguments) deletion would ensue
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yee-hah, let's analyze those "sources":

"Snapchat Porn" - includes a picture of the subject's mouth and hand and her supposed snapchat ID. Nothing else. Worthlessd.
"Seattle PI" - An article about a different porn performer does not even mention the subject, although she does appear in a group photo in an accompanying 27-image slideshow. Worthless.
"Daily Mail" Includes a picture of an Alektra Blue sex doll in an article about men who own sex dolls. No info regarding article subject. Worthless.
"lfpress" - An article which does not mention the article subject, illustrated with a group photo of porn performers, including Blue, not mentioned in the article. Worthless.
"TMZ" - posed for a photo at a rapper's party. No other info. TMZ didn't even care enough to identify her in the photo. Worthless.
"The Onion" - The fucking Onion. Namedropped in fake article on a fake/satirical news site. Utterly worthless.

Jo-Jo Eumerus, it's obvious that these sources were posted without making one shred of an effort to assess their value. No editor should have to waste any more time going through the rest of the list demonstrating the obvious. Six straight strikes and you're out! Please delete the article now; the appropriate outcome should be evident. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ofcourse you're going to think they're "worthless" because you're anti-porn and you've demonstrated that with the constant AFD nominations and Delete !votes, The appropriate action would be to close this as No Consensus - Sources were provided and although you disagree with them that doesn't mean this article should be deleted. –Davey2010^Talk 15:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you'd condescend to explain to us exactly how the "snapchat porn" piece, which literally includes nothing more than a picture of the supposed subject's mouth and hand, plus her supposed snapchat ID, constitutes evidence of notability. There's more substantive information provided in the average youtube cat video, after all. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion sourcing seems sufficient to satisfy subjects notoriety, believe it meets WP:Pornbio Cllgbksr (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Empty vote that does not address the WP:GNG concern. TheValeyard (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FWIW, some of the links (mentioned far above) that are reliable sources have recently been added to this article here. There are also no restrictions against "fan-based awards" in our inclusion guidelines. Guy1890 (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strawman. You can include as many "fan awards" as you like, inclusion isn't the point of contention. The contention is that fan awards do not count towards determining notability. TheValeyard (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The contention is that fan awards do not count towards determining notability"...which is, of course, a false claim as I've already stated. Also, basically saying that something is "unencyclopedic" isn't a valid AfD argument. Guy1890 (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from writing to sources. article has no encyclopedic worth to be here. some of the keep votes are questionable doubles. Light2021 (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've read your !vote 3 times and still cannot understand it could you either amend it so we can all understand it or simply strike it?, I did get the last bit which is actually wrong - There are no double !votes here - Each and every !vote in this AFD is unique and !votes on both sides are going per the relevant policies, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holly McCall

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

The content isn't so much unsourced an non existent, technical passes through award win aside there appears to be no additional sourced content to add. On that basis clearly fails below the line. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be just two sentences in this article to cite three films which this actress was in, and two of them are in wikilink text, indicating that these films have articles in Wikipedia. So, could this be merged with one of these two articles?Vorbee (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

McCall's roles in the two blue-linked films were minor, one of several performers in a large group sex scene in each film. This would be merging trivia about an extra. IAFD indicates a larger role in Tangerine, but do reliable sources acknowledge it? • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced and non-notable BLP. --Lockley (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references. No evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability and hasn't won any significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:44, 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 no consensus with WP:NPASR. Despite two relists, no further discussion happened on the last comment that raised the possibility of the subject meeting NARTIST. So Why 07:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joey B

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

Fails WP:ARTIST user is creating pages for his album songs. Legacypac (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and MUSICBIO as I nominated a bunch of stuff to AFD and TFD. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 07:09, 8 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 08:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- would this not meet WP:NARTIST?

The nomination of Joey B’s Tonga set tongues wagging since his song is perceived as being sexually explicit and the Vodafone Ghana Music Awards (VGMA) did not encourage songs with risque music. But Joey B has always insisted Tonga is not profane and he currently besides himself with joy that the song has earned him New Artiste of the Year at the VGMA hosted at the Accra International Conference Centre last Saturday. link.

K.e.coffman (talk) 21:17, 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) 01:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:49, 30 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) —MRD 20 14 01:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rob McEwen

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

No apparent notability, fails WP:GNG, formerly held a few unreliable, non-BLP sources, which have since been removed. Article feels like an advertisment and should be 'deleted. Lordtobi (✉) 20:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scrub for neutrality but keep. The article definitely needs sourcing repair and a cleanup for WP:NPOV, but there are credible notability claims — including being appointed to the Order of Canada, which is always valid grounds for an article in and of itself so long as there's some genuine substance and sourcing provided for what they did to get there. Then there's the philanthropy thing — which admittedly this article misses as written, but our article on the McEwen School of Architecture will make clearer. Article needs work, yes, but the base notability is there. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 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 04:47, 13 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) 00:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but as Bearcat notes, this needs to be rewritten. In addition to the Order of Canada, a quick google search reveals that this guy is one of the top 100 richest people in Canada http://www.canadianbusiness.com/lists-and-rankings/richest-people/rich-100-rob-mcewen/ and has been the subject of some significant news coverage, e.g. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/careers-leadership/rob-mcewen-mining-magnate-with-a-vision/article546293/?page=all There should be no problem finding good, verifiable info on this guy. Crypticfirefly (talk) 02:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Order of Canada is indicative of notability. The current version of the article is somewhat neutral, while sourcing has been improved. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 25 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. Apparently this does meet GNG afterall - Made a typo in the name which explains the "No results containing all your search terms were found.", Withdrawn (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Silverburn Shopping Centre

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

Non notable shopping centre, Fails MALLS as well as GNG –Davey2010^Talk 19:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to pass WP:GNG with several news stories since 2007: not always of particularly high quality or large size, but cumulatively they provide enough to meet GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As there don't seem to be criteria for notability at WP:MALLS I'm unclear as to how an article could fail them. Coverage in multiple RSs would seem to indicate passing WP:GNG, unless there is something deficient in these citations. Clarification regarding both of these aspects would be appreciated; otherwise I'm inclined to keep. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:35, 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. The covy-vio concerns were false. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 07:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Castagnajo's calendar

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

The whole article is copy paste from http://wiki.crisclara.com/castagnajos-calendar-wiki/ which some other wiki. In addition more than half article is in foreign language, too confusing Sulaimandaud (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article is okay to Keep, as it is translated from the compatibly licensed it:Calendario del castagnajo. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. the article does need substantial rewriting, but it is not copyvio and the use of extensive quotations is not be itself a reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 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 09:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Rescue Committee of the Red Cross

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

dab with no valid entries - IRC does not WP:DABMENTION Red Cross, ICRC doesn't have rescue in it's title. Both article have hatnotes now just in case, but I'd let anyone remove them. Widefox; talk 19:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to International Committee of the Red Cross, leaving the useful hatnote. A google search turned up only two hits for this term here and here both of which actually ought to say ICRC rather than IRC. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google of "International Rescue Committee of the Red Cross" (note quoted) gives two sources [27] [28] (all other 4/5 hits being WP circular). I'm guessing those two are typos, and as such we shouldn't have or use the term giving it legitimacy. As a new dab with negligible history/linking etc, I suggest deletion to prevent creation of ambiguity when there is none. Widefox; talk 14:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shhhnotsoloud pls clarify "Delete" or "Redirect"? Widefox; talk 11:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote was to delete the article, but because the term has erroneous uses, leave a redirect to International Committee of the Red Cross. I would be equally happy with a simple delete for the reasons you outline. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Widefox is convincing in arguing there's no sense in perpetuating an error like this. --Lockley (talk) 04:32, 9 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--withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Everymorning (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Tour of Qatar

Started in error, withdrawn nomination--Seacactus 13 (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

Non-notable cancelled cycling race. This edition of the race was never held, so it isn't enough to warrant an article. Seacactus 13 (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 6 June 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 June 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:54, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Dissidentplasterer (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thames Valley

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Outside of defining the Thames Valley, this article is mainly a list of locations that are ostensibly within the Thames Valley. Notability due to the economy of the area is commonly attributed to the M4 Corridor instead (as demonstrated by the article on the subject). The subject of the Thames Valley is well-enough served by the disambiguation page. Dissidentplasterer (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The use of the term "Thames Valley" long pre-dates the M4, although clearly the area overlaps with the M4 corridor, which is a much more recent term and covers an area extending much further westwards (as far as Swansea, perhaps). There are multiple published sources naming the Thames Valley - examples here. Although clearly the valley can easily be defined technically in geographical terms, the term is often used more loosely. But, the fact that there is no one single definition does not mean that there should not be an article about it - many ill-defined areas (such as the West Country) also have articles. The article itself is quite poor and needs to be properly referenced - but that is a reason to improve it, not delete it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I think there's a good argument for that article not existing either - it's mainly just a list of things with "West Country" in the name, and "West Country" is essentially synonymous with the South West of England. The argument that the article could be improved, however, is predicated on the idea that there is something distinctly notable to say about it. --Dissidentplasterer (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While the "South West" and the "West Country" are basically synonyms, the article South West of England is about the defined local government region. That strictly defined region is not synonymous with the fuzzy concept. The West Country could mean anything from just Devon and Cornwall to even including Herefordshire, but thoe alternative definitions have no place in an article about the region. Northern England is similarly poorly defined, but its article is currently at FAC. The lack of a single solid definition doesn't prevent a good article being written.--Nilf anion (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There about 176 pages which link to Thames Valley, and in itself that suggests it is a notable concept. They would have to be changed if the article was deleted. JonH (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Thames Valley certainly exists as a distinct area within England, and is quite distinct from the M4 corridor (South Wales, Bristol and Bath are part of the M4 corridor but not within the Thames Valley). Aside from the valley of the actual river, the business district and the National Character Area are significant and those last two links could be used to substantially flesh out the article. The police area and the water authority area could also be discussed, and I'm sure there's other uses too.--Nilf anion (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this I can work with. Closing --Dissidentplasterer (talk) 22:25, 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. As mentioned last week by Ad Orientem, this could have been closed as a no consensus last week. Proceeding with that closure; no prejudice against an early renomination – although I would suggest a discussion towards redirecting the article to the suggested pages before taking this up at Afd again. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 02:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transformation of culture

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

This feels like a personal essay and doesn't seem to be getting any better anytime soon. At this point, I think we should just blow it up and start over. I suggest that we delete or possibly stubbify this version, but allow editors to create a new article on this topic. TheDracologist (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to social change or culture change. This is pretty deep in essay territory, so any merger in a conventional sense wouldn't be much less work than just a de novo expansion of the target. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - there already is a merge discussion here. Discussion should take place there. --Fixuture (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The linked merge "discussion" has gone eight weeks without a single participant other than the proposer. I suppose that means it could be viewed as uncontroversial at this point, and simply be done by an editor who is so motivated. But it also shouldn't be a procedural bar to a deletion discussion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with Fixuture, no one has opposed your merge suggestion, perhaps you could bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, wait another week, and then Be bold. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten about the merge discussion. Thanks for directing me to somewhere that I can attract more attention to it. TheDracologist (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A user who has not participated herein has opposed the merge at Talk:Culture change
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The topic is certainly notable. The article is not very good, and frankly, if somebody wanted to WP:TNT this and start a new one, it wouldn't be bad, but unless someone wants to rewrite it from scratch, merge or no merge, this is still a notable topic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to social change or culture change. WP:TNT: we don't need overlapping articles covering similar ground. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and, most likely redirect per discussion elsewhere. Notable topic even if quality poor. Montanabw^(talk) 16:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I came close to closing this as a no-consensus given that opinions are all over the place. But let's give it another week and hope for consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 07:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of airline flights that required gliding

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

This list fails WP:NOTABILITY. No evidence of notability is provided in the article. This article has been around since 2011 yet Category:Lists of aviation accidents and incidents does not include any similar lists for hydraulic failures, pilot heart attacks, bits falling off, etc. etc. This article is an anomaly that should be deleted. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This list seems to fall afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It seems to be the only list of its kind and not part of any series or pattern of similar lists, so seems to serve no organizing purpose on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument and could be fixed by creating a series or pattern of similar lists. You have to start somewhere, and there is no deadline. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 20:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Speedy Keep. The nomination is using the flawed WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument for deletion. As for WP:N, here is a reference to establish notability for gliding planes. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More accurately, I am saying that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not available as a counterargument. There is a difference. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the difference. Neither WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS nor WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is a valid argument. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to Speedy keep since nominator is acknowledging using an invalid argument. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. My argument is very simple. I tried to set it in context a little, but I now realise that was politically unwise so I have struck that context. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So all that's left of your argument is notability. I have now added a second reference to the article in order to establish notability for this list. So go ahead and also strike out the part of your nomination saying that "No evidence of notability is provided in the article" because that is certainly no longer true. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, one online essay at Flight Deck Friend is not sufficient to establish notability. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the link to the article. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, defining characteristic of at least some accidents like the Gimli Glider and the one when they had to fly upside down. Restrict to notable accidents please. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 19:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are already many categories in Category:Accidents and incidents involving airliners but no Category:airline flights that required gliding or similar. The list provides sortable date, model, description, fatalities and personnel, though.Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild keep – Category:Airliner accidents and incidents caused by engine failure already exists, and its description explicitly mentions gliding as an inclusion criterion, so the list we're discussing does serve some purpose, although it requires some work: a) Strip all non-notable occurrences (such as 'flight engineer goes for a pee, all engines flame out, he comes back and all is good again'); b) Change the name to List of airliner accidents and incidents that involved gliding. EDIT: a corresponding category could be created as well. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I personally find the topic fascinating. Thus, in my view, the article contributes to the encyclopedia; does not detract from it. I had a look at wp:Stand-alone lists and didn't see anything that explicitly argues against or for this list in principle. Wikipedia is rife with stuff that really does need deletion; this article on the other hand is useful, though it will benefit from improved writing and references where needed. DonFB (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC) ... Add: title might be better as: "List of airline flights forced to glide." DonFB (talk) 06:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Comment as the original article creator: The initial source of this was a list of similar flights that was taken from Gimli Glider [29]. Most of those articles then included links to other flights that involved gliding in the "See also" sections. It seemed to me to make sense to make a separate list article, so I crawled through articles and consolidated those links into this new standalone list. I considered making a category, but I thought a list would be better as it could include flights that did not yet have their own articles. (Note that Category:Airliner accidents and incidents caused by engine failure was created after this list.) —howcheng {chat} 17:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1) The vast majority of incidents are themselves bluelinked, indicating that it is a list of notable incidents and thus deletion demands a higher bar than if it were indeed of trivial events. 2) This is NOT a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. "List of airline flights that had a red-headed pilot" would be, but gliding is an essential characteristic of fixed-wing aircraft, and so the list is a perfectly valid collection of incidents. Jclemens (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Misconstrued argument for deletion: WP:N is not fully applicable to standalone lists which should use WP:STANDALONE instead. In particular, the list/collection does not have to have independent notability on its own. Instead, it has to have clearly cut inclusion/exclusion criteria, have a finite number of potential elements, and ideally most of its elements should have independent notability (i.e., articles on Wikipedia). This list satisfies this, and so can stay. 10:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC) -- added by user:Kashmiri
No, the misconstruction is yours. WP:STANDALONE says that WP:NOTABILITY does apply: "Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines.". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the misconstruction is yours. Per WP:WikiProject Aviation/Notability, "List-class articles are exempt from notability requirements. Entries listed inherit notability from their own articles.". 96.41.32.39 (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where an inconsistency exists between project guidelines and Wikipedia-wide guidelines, the Wikipedia guidelines take precedence. But thank you for pointing that out. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No contradiction. The notability of the list is taken from the articles. The flights are notable for gliding, making the list of flights that glided notable. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that highlights my point in bringing this to AfD. There is no evidence that the flights are, as you claim, notable for gliding and not for other reasons. I am not saying that claim is necessarily untrue, only that no evidence has been provided. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is so convoluted, I cannot follow it. The flights on the list are notable for having some sort of an incident (that's why there are either Wikipedia article for them, or they should have Wikipedia articles). All the incidents on the list involved gliding -- which in most cases saved some lives (many many lives), as opposed to falling out of the sky and crashing. Therefore, the list of flights that have glided gets its notability from the flights that are notable for having glided. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 07:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelpillow: thought about taking a read of First law of holes? — kashmiri ^TALK 10:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a useful article. JMcC (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's highly unusual for airline flights to ever glide (thankfully), and incidents where this has occurred are well covered in reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It is very notable when ever a flight that is not ment to glide glides it is also highly informational!Jkd4855 (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete really a made up concept just to create an indiscriminate list, most of the entries dont actually involve gliding but engineless plummets. Aircraft that were glided like Gimli Glider are actually categorise as engine issues but we dont list accidents by all possible variations of skill required to survive. MilborneOne (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not a particular flight has glided and therefore not be listed should be taken on the article's talk page. It would not be a reason to delete the list. I do not agree with you that most entries are "engineless plummets". 96.41.32.39 (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 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. postdlf (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of billboard hot 100 11 to 20 peaks in 1958

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

I believe the Billboard top ten lists are already bordering WP:IINFO, but taking these to top 20 songs, especially done in this manner (just showing Hot 100 peaks of 11 through 20) is even more indiscriminate and simply WP:LISTCRUFT for chart enthusiasts. I consider it similar to AfDs for lists of number-two hit songs (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-two singles of 2008 (U.S.) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Billboard Hot 100 number-two singles of 2015) which have been deleted. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added list for 1970 after the first delete !vote below. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Completely WP:LISTCRUFT, using the same rationale as the previous two AfD's mentioned. Ajf773 (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per nom. The top-10 lists are useful, but these lists are cruft. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I agree with User:Power~enwiki that Top 10 lists are useful and pass WP:GNG but that these are cruft. What's up next? List of Billboard Hot 100 21 to 30 peaks? List of losing World Series teams? List of losing FA Cup semi-finalists? No, thanks! Narky Blert (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I have asked @Aidanis20: to refrain from creating more of these lists pending the results of this AfD, but List of Billboard Hot 100 11 to 20 peaks in 1960 has now been published and should be included in this nomination. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Include it. Ajf773 (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow a full seven days of discussion on all of the articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Completely esoteric chart information, listcruft, probable COPYVIO, unsourced, I could probably cite a few more things. Nate • (chatter) 20:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars . Can we add the following years to this debate? 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967. Despite your warnings, they were created anyhow. Ajf773 (talk) 11:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Since it could extend this discussion another week, I thought I'd let this one conclude and, assuming a consensus to delete, I would PROD those ones. If the author removed them, I'd nominate them in a new AfD, citing the consensus of this one. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 14:10, 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. Apart from one or two lone comments advocating deletion, it's clear that consensus is to keep this article in one form or another. There is no consensus whether to keep as a stand-alone article or redirect/merge it to a list of such attacks but that's not something that has to be decided at AfD but can always be proposed on the talk page. Regards So Why 09:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Notre Dame attack

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

Article about a minor incident that could easily be summarized in another article. - Mr X 17:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of terrorist incidents in June 2017. Not every attack in the world needs its own article. If not for the "terrorist" label this kind of story could be found in a local newspaper. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Where will we draw the line as to what is too minor and what is not? Just keep it. There are plenty of articles about less significant things. We shouldn't arbitrarily choose which events are significant. Everyone could be covered in a different article. And what relevance does a newspaper hold?El cid, el campeador (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is why we have WP:OSE, and WP:NOTNEWS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid." Not News could be applied to any article on an event, I miss your point. Do a certain number of people have to die for it to be notnews?El cid, el campeador (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be significant coverage which is lacking here. The content can easily be summarized in the redirect I proposed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per knowledgekid. Only minor coverage even in France- the English attacks are receiving heavier coverage! — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's WP:NOTE on WP:EVENTS. Or who and when do we decide an attack is big enough to be included? There are far less relevant incidents who has gotten an article, like 2017 Portland train attack.--Rævhuld (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay can you point to where this article would apply? Lacking in depth sources is a red flag when it comes to notability for a stand alone article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that while article creator (497 edits to date) is a WP:NEWBIES, Nom is an editor with vast experience who ought to have followed WP:RAPID. As the closing editor wrote at a similar article that was rushed to deletion by Mr. X a couple of weeks ago and closed as No consensus, "Additionally, the incident happened very recently, and new information is still coming out about it. This article was created on the day of the incident, and the AfD was started 8 hours after the article was created (which is discouraged by WP:RAPID for this very reason). There will be a better opportunity for a stronger consensus to emerge after the dust settles." As an editor who regularly works on terrorism-related articles, I have real fear that rushing articles on breaking news events of this kind can tend to WP:DISRUPT the project by forcing editors - especially new editors - to run the AfD gauntlet. I strongly suggest that Mr X withdraw this. If his opinion is unchanged a few months, he can nominate it then.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect isn't deletion. (WP:TOOSOON) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I decline. There is no time constraint on deleting articles. Editors should use their judgement based on common practice, content policies, nature of the subject, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:10YT, and other factors. This article is about a person who hit another person with a hammer. Meanwhile, we don't have independent articles for the daily massacres in Syria and Iraq; street executions in the Philippines; or for the five people who were brutally murdered in Orlando, Florida yesterday. We need to instill some perspective into our content decisions and not simply try to promote an project-wide viewpoint that the world is besieged by Islamist terrorism.- Mr X 18:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 3) Keep per Rævhuld: It's an obviously notable event with reliable sources provided. Each terrorist attack has an article including minor events just like June 2017 Kabul attack. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 18:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That attack killed 20 people, here you have a lone man swinging a hammer at a cop. Two police officers were killed today as well in a shootout with gunmen who probably belonged to Islamic State in Egypt's northern Sinai, where is the article about this? [30] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:RAPID, let's wait and see how this develops before wasting time on an AfD. Edwardx (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The correct thing to do would be to spin out things into articles when they get to be too big. Nobody is saying this isn't notable just that it shouldn't have its own article yet. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yeah, redirect. Sadly routine and minor incident, with no deaths or major injuries (apart from the guy who did it). ansh 666 17:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Striking, because National Centre for Counter Terrorism could provide the long-term impact angle that most such articles don't have. Not going with keep though, more of a wait and see. ansh666 18:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Ansh666: The National Centre for Counter Terrorism was ordered a month ago per the source Drmies found. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue. Drmies did not "find" the source, he just read the link. Misread it, actually. The Centre was under discussion, but it was not "ordered" a month ago. See my comment below.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, it was publicly announced as a result of this attack, so my revised comment stands. ansh 666 03:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let's see how this develops first before deleting articles, it's receiving worldwide attention. MookiePlays (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting philosophy would be 'let's see how this develops first before writing articles' :) — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note this similar AfD on the similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Paris machete attack; (an attack on the Louvre; closed as Keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder, months later that attack still has not stood out. It should be merged into Terrorism in France as nothing came out of that event that made it stand out from other terrorist events. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated it. Then 12 editors weighed in, all twelve iVoting to keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Attack was significant enough as it occured at a major location. The Notre Dame Cathedral bombing attempt has also an article while that was a failed attempt and resulted in no injuries.JBergsma1 (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was a major bomb plot.... this was a lone guy swinging a hammer. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above and WP:NOTNEWS. Also as per Ansh666 points out these types of routines are becoming more and more routine. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not a standout with all the recent attacks, but notable enough to merit an article in my opinion. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of terrorist incidents in June 2017, as per Knowledgekid. Not encyclopaedic incident. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note also the similarity to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 shooting of Paris police officers which closed as withdrawn/keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of terrorist incidents in June 2017. WP:NOTNEWS. No deaths or significant injuries, so there is no reason to keep this as standalone encyclopedic content. Ceosad (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an attack at one of the worlds biggest tourist attractions is a notable event. Murchison-Eye (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The French President now plans to extend the 'State of Emergency' and implement additional security measures due to this event Murchison-Eye (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to eventually lapse unless it extended again by some other means. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Once again, the keep rationales for this event are terribly unconvincing and misunderstand the point of NOTNEWS. Wikipedia does not wait a few months for events to be notable; they either are or they are not.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - Possibly this will become a redirect, but that doesn't need to happen in AfD. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that within hours there are stories reported from Paris (ie NOT wire service stories) in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and Los Angeles Times, reported stories. also, that was Nancy Soderberg tweeting from inside the cathedral.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should that be surprising? Drmies (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reported stories are not assigned/written for "routine" attacks in foreign cities. Such stories are testament to the notability of this attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are testament to the newsworthiness of this attack; tomorrow we'll have wrapped fish in it. Surely you know this. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or find some redirection target. Not every headline or set of headlines is an article. BTW, that template with search avenues on top of this AfD should indicate what the problem is with such articles. We don't have a thing called "2017 Notre Dame attack"--we're like CNN making up names for events. There is of course no coverage of this event anywhere else but in the news, nor will there be for a long time, if ever. So the suggestion to search JSTOR or Google Books is ludicrous, and even if there were hits there you are not likely to get them under this exact name. I hope I'm not the only one seeing this as a problem. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of terrorist incidents in June 2017. This is why we have WP:NOTNEWS. Lepricavark (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of terrorist incidents in June 2017 - as well explained above. Neutrality^talk 23:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect per those advocating same. If and when this generates enough material to warrant a separate article, no problem to recreate it, but at the moment it's (and I'm not sure this is a phrase I want to use) a "run of the mill" attack. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptionally weak keep. I promised I'd review my opinion if and when the facts changed, and it appears that the consequences (and possibly the circumstances) of this particular incident are sufficiently distinctive as to merit a keep...just. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BigHaz if you have time, I recommend you read Drmies source further below. The task force was not created as a result of this attack; in fact, it was announced a month ago. I'm not sure if that affects your opinion but I thought it is worth mentioning.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does ever so slightly, but probably not enough to change my faintest-of-keeps as the sort of "bottom line". Thanks for the heads-up, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You guys have awfully good WP:CRYSTALBALLS. Me, I'd not only like to hear how the French cabinet responds when they meet tomorrow, I'd like to wait the full 7 days, maybe longer to see the degree to which the press responds with SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This attack alone isn't notable, the attacks as a whole and the collective response are though. I would suggest someone summarize France's response to terrorism in the country in another article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, there are so many more articles to write on topics that are proven to be notable. Why are you trying to do the job of the news sites? We're not bad at it, and it's sexy to get it up quickly with pictures and maps and flags for responses (I sure hope we have some response...)--but it's not our job. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the article has well already been written, meaning we've done a good enough job of making it notable. Do you have any idea how many articles there are? Millions. If you're telling me even a majority of them are more notable than this, I'd be surprisedEl cid, el campeador (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

El cid, I've been around long enough to have a pretty decent idea of how many articles we have, but thank you for the pointer. Now, "we've done a good enough job of making it notable"--a possibly Freudian slip. Blowing it up, with maps and flags and fancy names, makes it notable: you are suggesting we are making news, and given our high scores on Google searches that could be true--all the more reasons to be reticent rather than eager in writing up things that just happened. Yes, a majority of our articles are more notable than this topic (do not confuse an article with a topic). Drmies (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Besides which, an AfD isn't an instant process. In the event that the French cabinet does something significant as a response to this (or in the event that something else significant happens as a result of this), I for one am happy to revise my opinion and I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one to do so. As at this precise moment, though, a redirect is an eminently sensible approach to take. I'm also not sure Wikipedia's role is to "make something notable", so much as it is to write about things which have already become so. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I misspoke in that, but it doesn't matter. The point is that it's already written and longer than most articles, and has several sources. What point is there in deleting it? Other than perhaps making some people feel important El cid, el campeador (talk) 02:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:El cid, el campeador's point is well taken, WP:PRESERVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the question isn't "Is the article written?", much less "Is it bigger than article X?". The question is whether each and every terrorist attack is encyclopedic before they trigger any notable events beyond "Someone attacked people with a hammer at Notre Dame Cathedral". If the French President comes out and bans hammers from sale (to take a silly potential outcome), then there's patently an encyclopedic value in having this article. If life carries on much as it did beforehand, then there doesn't appear to be. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No; "the question" is whether reliable sources treat this specific attack as notable, by the standards laid out at WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The attack is notable as is the ongoing terrorist attacks in France. Its a continuing stream that can easily be summarized. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of terrorist incidents in June 2017. A guy tried to hit a police officer with a hammer, and was shot. Not really a significant event WP:NOTNEWS.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that attacker's injuries are "minor," so there will be a trial; ongoing coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - attack has recieved world wide attention. The attacker was a noted journalist. Article is in good shape and with good sources. --BabbaQ (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A 'noted' journalist? Or, actually, a 'journalist'? — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's certainly noted now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not a great believer in the pen being mightier than the sword, eh...? — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worth pointing out that yes, the perpetrator is a noted journalist. For instance, he won second place in the European Commission's 2009 "EU Journalist Award", established under the EC's PROGRESS programme. XavierItzm (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not a "routine" or "minor" incident. It has received worldwide attention. There will be no consensus to delete this. However, I would not object to a redirect if there is consensus that we are better waiting to see if an article should be spun out later.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the world knows that France has been under continued terrorist attacks, it is part of a larger picture. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Partly because new information continues to emerge. But also because the useful details are inevitably lost when an article is merged into capsule summary on a list. And also because the Cabinet has reacted by using this latest attack as the occasion on which to announce the creation of a new National Centre for Counter Terrorism ( a tough job just awarded to Pierre de Bousquet de Florian ) But mostly keep because such merges of well-sourced attacks are dysfunctional. This article is already linked from the proposed Merge target: List of terrorist incidents in June 2017 (Note that many incidents on that page are bluelinked.) But it is also linked from a number of other articles, including not only the obvious List of Islamist terrorist attacks,Notre-Dame de Paris, Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present), and ISIL-related terror attacks in France , but also the similar Notre Dame Cathedral bombing attempt, and 2017 Louvre machete attack, and from a what-were-the-odds windfall for American politician Nancy Soderberg: Clinton advisor, American national security expert and diplomat who is widely spoken of as a probable candidate to unseat sitting Republican congressman Ron DeSantis, a former Navy officer. Soderberg was in the locked-down cathedral, tweeting with great éclat. My point here is that not only the proposed redirect, but a redirect to any of the lists or articles from which this article is linked would represent a loss of functionality for the project. By keeping the page, we enable detailed information to be found and discovered by our readers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What useful information? Do we need extra details about how person x recited the Lord's prayer while being locked inside the church? The article can be summed up be saying "An Algerian student named Farid Ikken, injured an officer with a hammer then was shot in response by police. Ikken was an award winning journalist who lived in France who claimed to be a "soldier of the caliphate". As a response to the incident a new task force called the National Centre for Counter Terrorism was created, and the state of emergency extended for an additional few months." Add in a few extra details to that and you have the entire article summarized in a paragraph. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would not personally have chosen to delete well-sourced information from an article while arguing that the article should be deleted because it lacks information; it gives more the feel of marking cards in a friendly hand of poker than working collegiality to build an encyclopedia..E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you respond to my comment by sharing why you chose that particular list as a merge target? To me the difficult of choosing which list to merge this or any specific terrorist attack to is a fundamental argument against merging. It makes specific incidents so much harder to find that if we keep the article and link it from all of the relevant lists/articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With new details pouring out of the European press, not only about the creation of the National Centre for Counter Terrorism, but about the unusually well-educated perp, I make no doubt that the article will continue to be expanded with useful and interesting information.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Would possibly be inclined to agree with nominator when this first broke, but details that have now come out, especially regarding the unusual perpetrator makes it noteworthy in my opinion. Also 900 people locked in for hours followed by the French President launching a new counter-terrorism task force are lasting effects. User2534 (talk) 06:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that jihadist is recovering in hospital and has been charged with attempted murder, so there will and be a trial and ensuing coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is too much international coverage, there should be a WP:OBVIOUSTERRORISTATTACK to ban the standard drill dozens of editors immediately trying to whitewash every terrorist attack, and every terrorist style crime where the motive is "unclear" as per WP:NOTNEWS or not WP:NOTABLE even when it is front page news for a month. If these seemingly random attacks are coordinated, then we can expect coordinated active measures in media to downplay or spread disinformation or otherwise censor coverage of such events. In the case of the D.C. sniper attacks and Ali Muhammad Brown luring and killing of two gay men in Seattle and a student motorist in New Jersey, even seeming random and not notable crimes which are unexplained should be treated as suspected terrorist attacks as long as they receive verifiable local coverage. Wikipedia can be a useful resource for researchers seeking to connect seemingly unconnected events even when authorities cannot. As it is, Wikipedia is woefully useless compared to Heavy and Everipedia which have no such high barrier to covering any event with substantial news coverage or even minimal coverage in blogs with a conservative or tabloid agenda which are often the only reliable media for attacks which are not covered by "reliable" sources. There are hundreds of unexplained crimes and accidents where the motive or criminal aspects are unproven or a credible possibility. Hammer and ax attacks like this deserve attention when they are done at landmarks that are strategic to terrorists and when they leave evidence to authorities that they are inspired by terrorist movements like ISIS. There should be no difference in coverage just because one is proven to be inspired or directed by terrorists, or may have been staged to look like road rage, breakup rage, rage over workplace firing, intoxication or mental illness, when the only difference is motive. Bachcell (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete' No international coverage. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False premise. International coverage is already on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk)
- @E.M.Gregory: True premise. When one has articles from the foreign press for 2 days is not international coverage. sorry. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that yesterday 's New York Times had a large photo of this indicent at the top of the front page, and that the story in the Times and in a number of other American papers, both national and regional papers, was reported from Paris, i.e., not an echo of a wire service story. The story also led the the news on NPR & CNN.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing on the medium term. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Is the Wikipedia running out of server space? No. This event has been widely covered by WP:RS worldwide and content continues to be added. There is no sound rationale for deletion, and if this were deleted for reasons of being considered "minor" (in the eyes of the deleter), then about 1/2 of the Wikipedia, with articles with less sources and less edits, would have to be deleted too, for consistency. As the latter is unlikely to happen, the deletion of this page and not of the others would show clear bias/censorship by the deleters. XavierItzm (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of terrorist incidents in June 2017, per Knowledgekid and others. - Sigersson (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not less minor than many articles on sporting events. 900 tourists stuck for two hours in Notre Dame --Olevy (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep the same reasons as the others. Not to mention that many an article already has linked to this article on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rævhuld (talk • contribs) 12:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Rævhuld, you have already voted further up the page, which must have escaped your memory. Could you strike this second !vote, please. – Sigersson (talk) 07:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This attack has received significant coverage in news sources across several nations (Germany, Sweden, Great Britain, United States and of course France). Meets WP:GNG. --Skr15081997 (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: today is 9 June. Seems like the event is over. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, had its time in the news and now it is past. The attacker here seems to be more notable than the attack itself though so a merger into a new article might be a better solution. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is over. But so are several other terrorist incidents over the years. And we have articles about those. That is a null and void comment.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ WP:OSE is not an argument. Drmies' point was the wave of media coverage about the event is over. No one here can claim it is sustained unless they have a WP:CRYSTALBALL -- which seems like a very accessible item for editors lately at these types of AfDs.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even as you were asserting that coverage is "over," a columnist for an American big city daily, the Sun-Sentinel, was complaining vociferously that the press has spent too much time covering this story, "During the day, CNN led the story with big, important-looking "Breaking News" graphics. That night, the incident in Paris led the evening news all over the country. Newspapers worldwide were all over the story."[31]. He is outraged that "a possible terrorist with a hammer thousands of miles away gets more public attention than a mass murder in Orlando."E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC) Coverage on such an intense and massive scale would probably establish notability even if coverage now ended.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But I said above, details continue to be published and, since he is said to be recovering, press coverage will continue as he goes to trial. Not to mention the impact of this event on French security services already noted in article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An impact cleverly fabricated/suggested in the article, which doesn't note that the "new counter-terrorism task force" was ordered a month ago; that it was announced the day after this one mad person's attack is coincidence. E.M. Gregory, can you please use phrases like "intense and massive scale" a bit more judiciously? It sounds like the claims made in presidential tweets. Drmies (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of this attack in the U.S. was on an "intense and massive scale" on Tuesday and Wednesday last. Truly, led the news at the top of the hour, front page photos. Regional newspapers and broadcast media running interviews with locals who were in or near the Cathedral. I won't speculate as to why. But the coverage for about 36 hours was massive and intensive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not fabricate, please rescind your slander. What I wrote was that Macron "announced the creation of a new intelligence task force..." This is accurate. Anyone following events, or reading the links will understand the a reform was contemplated and that Macron either moved it forward or made the final decision to announce what a plan that had been proposed but not decided upon in the wake of this event. That is, it was unclear whether the Notre Dame attack caused Macron to finalize his decision or to move an already firm decision forward. Because this was unclear, I worded it very carefully. But do Note that a plan is only a plan until it is formally announced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory from what I read on the source above it appears this has had little impact. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man. My argument, and that of other editors, is simply that the attack is notable not because my personal opinion, but because politicians and the international press have deemed it notable. We follow sources, and the sources exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- With regard to Drmies note of 9 June, here is a BBC article dated 11 June^[1] and here is an article from the Sun also dated 11 June^[2]. Looks like Drmies is absolutely correct: the "event" is over, but international coverage continues well past his comment! XavierItzm (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by CJON-DT

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

List of programs broadcast by an individual independent television station. While lists of this type are permitted for national networks, I can't find any other evidence in Category:Lists of television series by network of them existing for standalone stations as well. And furthermore, while the station is nominally independent of Canada's national networks, in actual practice it doesn't buy standalone broadcast rights to any programming that's exclusive to it, but just sublicenses a crossnetwork mix of programs from CTV and Global — so it's still basically a dual affiliate of both networks nonetheless, with its only real point of "independence" being that it's not faithful to either network's standard schedule. The end result being that apart from its own local newscast (which doesn't have its own standalone article separate from the "news" section of the station article) and maybe a few syndication strips, pretty much everything listed here is already going to be in either List of programs broadcast by CTV and CTV Two or List of programs broadcast by Global anyway. All of which means there's just no need for this. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 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 07:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- 'cruft & unnecessary cross categorisation. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:37, 15 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) 02:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Would be a keep if it was actually maintained in any manner, but we're stuck in the 2014-15 season on this article, plus this can easily just be maintained as a mention of what's currently on in summary form in the CJON-DT article. Nate • (chatter) 04:35, 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 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 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

AfDs for this article:

(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. [32] and this review on Engadget Upcoming 'Zelda' amiibo unlocks a challenge dungeon, Seppala, Timothy J. Engadget, New York: AOL Inc. Jan 21, 2016. [33] 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 ([34]), 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. 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.[35] 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" [36]; that H. L. Mencken used some of Feather's work to illustrate a point in The American Language [37]; and that gBooks produces a citation of Feather as the source of a hoary adage in The Concise Columbia Dictionary of Quotations [38]. 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Twice relisted an only one vote (delete). It's time to move on Ad Orientem (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming Insane

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

A promo EP that had a limited release with no coverage to speak of. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article talks about the EP named Becoming Insane and also a song by the same name on Vicious Delicious. I'm not sure if the article is straying off topic since it's talking about both the EP and the album single. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 17:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a single reference. Not notable. Promotional page written by an SPA. --Lockley (talk) 01:18, 10 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 08:27, 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. With a single delete vote and having been twice relisted with no history of previous contested deletion, I am treating this as an expired Prod. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Title Contender

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

This also appears to be a horse that fails notability; won two grade III races, and while they are somewhat notable Grade III races, there is nothing in this article to distinguish this horse...he's a gelding and his last race was a claiming race in 2015 (per equibase) Montanabw^(talk) 18:35, 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) 20:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - He had a decent 2013 but tailed off badly to fall to the claiming ranks. Was claimed after last start for $16K and nothing since. Jlvsclrk (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 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 17:05, 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 08:27, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Megha Mathew

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

Non notable actress. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Has supposedly acted in 2 movies - Aanandam in which she is not even billed and Oru Mexican Aparatha in which she had a very minor role. All the references are about the movies, and her acting career section is therefore just information about the movies - the directors, actors, producers etc. Then there is also a section of her personal life which is unreferenced. Jupitus Smart 16:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails basic GNG and WP:NACTOR she needs to do more substantial and notable work to warrant a standalone page, for now its WP:TOOSOON. FITINDIA 04:34, 11 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 08:27, 14 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) 00:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable actress. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:00, 29 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 09:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Riverside Cessna 310 crash

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

Tragic but not notable general aviation crash. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:28, 6 June 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? 16:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:31, 6 June 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? 16:31, 6 June 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? 16:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regretfully, a Delete, as per my comments left in my New Page Review on the user's talk page. (I hope other editors will note that Kurosubi appears to be a brand new editor. If so, he/she may well be disappointed if the concensus here for this particular article is for 'deletion', but they are surely to be praised for producing such a well-constructed article and I, for one, hope they will continue to make other contributions in the future, and not be put off by our discussions here.) Nick Moyes (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – accidents to private flights involving non-notable people are considered to be below the threshold of inclusion, since such occurrences, tragic as they might be, are run-of-the-mill life stories that are good for a newspaper, but not necessarily for Wikipedia. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' though I endorse Nick Moyes comments on the author, this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. sIMPLY PUT wIKIPEDIA IS NOT A NEWSPAPER OR REPOSITORY OF DAILY LIFE SNIPPETS.--Petebutt (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable. Wykx (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete light aircraft accidents are rarely notable and I cant see anything here that passes the threshold for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:52, 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 In the Night Garden.... No CSD criterion is plausible. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 07:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Titifers

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. There are a few hits on other wikis (not Wikipedia, but wikis on Wikia), but there is only one short mention of them elsewhere. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 16:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Unreferenced article about non notable subject, fails WP:GNG.Theroadislong (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I agree with Theroadislong. It does not meet WP:GNG.--Rogerx2 (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to In the Night Garden... where these characters are already covered. No speedy deletion criteria apply. Jclemens (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to In the Night Garden... seems appropriate to me. The characters are already covered there so someone may look up this term and a redirect would be helpful for that purpose. Aoba47 (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – A valid search term, as per WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 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. So Why 08:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal & Pearce

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

Despite a wealth of references, I can see none that convey notability or get even close to satisfying WP:MUSIC. Many listings and track listings, several nominations for awards but no evidence of a record in the country's charts etc. Several daughter articles have been spawned off the back of this article including separate articles on discography and individual albums, none of which, I suspect, are notable. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, pending a refutation of my reasoning. - They have been nominated twice for the South African Music Awards. Musical notability guidelines provide that nomination for a major award is a qualifying criterion. So it really comes down to whether the South African Music Awards are of the same standing as the American Grammy Awards. The Delete argument would appear to turn on saying that national awards only count depending on the size of the country (and South Africa is a medium-sized country, not a small country). I am ready for an argument that South African nominations don't count, but for now I am inclined to read the notability guideline literally.
Comment - If this article is deleted, the daughter articles can mostly go A9. If this article is kept, we can have a merge/keep debate on each, and I think some should be merged and some kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - By the way, I am beginning to think that I am a deletionist, but, if so, I am a deletionist who nonetheless favors "strict construction" of specific notability guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment response - Robert McClenon- I did look at South African Music Awards to see whether that helps in clarifying the applicability of our policies - it doesn't. I tried the web-site which left me with the strong impression that anybody in South Africa can be nominated, including self-nominated, for an award. There is then some verification and initial adjudication process which produces a list of "Nominees". If included on that short list of nominees, I would expect to see a status of "Nominee" in the article table and not "Nominated". If this is the correct interpretation, then no notability can attend upon the status "nominated" although the winner of an award might well be considered notable as per the BAFTAs. Grammy etc. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:03, 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 05:10, 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 01:02, 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. So Why 07:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ziosk

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

Delete No indications of notability. References are mostly advertorials or PR or mentions-in-passing or are references to the company or industry. Fails GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (please note that I created this page, but have no affiliation with the company). The company has in excess of 170K of the devices in the United States, the devices are just sold in a non-traditional model. In regards to the comment by HighKing, most of the citations are from respectable news organizations, and I will fix the couple of instances where press releases have been cited today. Also, the article is about the company, in addition to their table ordering tablets, not just the devices themself. Daylen (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I have replaced the citations which are press releases. Daylen (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I too am not affiliated with the company but the sources speak for themselves: The New York Times, The Washington Post, CBS, etc. I see only PDF's as possible PR, but the rest is reliable. Don't understand why it was nominated in the first place?--Biografer (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Biografer Take a look at the WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH guidelines. It's not just that the sources must be "independent" (and nobody is saying that somehow there's a connection between the some publications and Ziosk) but they must be "intellectually independent" and these ones are not. For example, the Forbes article (ignoring for now that it is in their "sites"/"blogs" section and therefore fails the criteria for establishing notability) is a classic advertorial and we see this from Forbes (here at AfD) all the time - it is a common "customer success story" dressed up as an ad and that "article" has been reprinted and republished in other publications (again, classic advertorial behaviour). The purported "independent" article includes customer interviews, photos, complete "look how easy it is to use" descriptions, mild put-downs of "other payment systems" and why Ziosk is better, the financial reasons for restaurants to chose Ziosk, quotes from company officers. Hard to see what they've left out barring a download link for a brochure. The NYT article has one small paragraph where they mention Ziosk in passing with a quote from a company officer - it is not in-depth coverage and Ziosk is not the topic of the article. The latimes article is regurgitating a PR announcement from Olive Garden - fails WP:ORGIND and is not independent. The nrn.com article is from an announcement made by Red Robin. The announcement was made as the Greenwood Village, Colo.-based casual-dining operator reported a 3.6-percent increase in same-store sales for its fourth quarter ended Dec. 29, including a 1.2-percent increase in traffic. The Washington Post article is an advertorial complete with quotations from exec at Chili's and Ziosk. Bloomberg articles are usually advertorials and this one is no exception - even uses the "5 ways Ziosk is great for your business" style of formatting. The Sacramento Bee article fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it only mentions Ziosk in passing and also because the article relies on the opinion of a "Tom Caporaso, CEO of Clarus Commerce" who cannot be regarded as a reliable source. The CBS Sacramento article meets the criteria for establishing notability. Finally, the eater.com article is a repeat/summary of the CBS article so is not a new independent source. So in my opinion, only one good source that meets the criteria for establishing notability out of eleven. That isn't enough. Hopefully now you've a better understanding of the reasons why the article was nominated in the first place. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- highly promotional for TableTop Media; the content does not belong here. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some older sources talk about Ziosk in the context of hotels/etc. Anyway, the tablet-menus in a restaurant seem notable. I am not sure if this particular one deserves an article, but honestly I couldn't find much about potential competitors. Still, to reduce spam/advertising concerns, a rewrite into a tablet menu or such could be considered (PS. I noticed we have Table ordering tablet). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 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 01:02, 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 Already Deleted. Taken care of by Dlohcierekim. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 07:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Presto Tablet

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

Delete Corporate spam. Product is the only product made by E la Carte and has zero notabilty outside of any potential notabilty of the company. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 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. Keep !votes have been determined to be invalid. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E la Carte

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

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. References are press releases and/or advertorials and fail WP:ORGIND. No evidence of notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable corporate blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the use of third-party sources, the tone of the article is indeed more a blurb than anything.TH1980 (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Post is not in violation of WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG, and WP:ORIGIND as references are not directly linked to company website or press releases. Citations are provided from reputable and non-biased news sources. Please refer to citation #11 - This article was written by Alex Conrad of Forbes, who is a well known journalist. Most references provided on the page are in fact notable and are not self-promotional. User:LuckyHorse (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)— LuckyHorse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Blocked Note that this account has been blocked as a sock/meat puppet. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Article tone was indeed more like a corporate blurb and was outdated, but has now been partly edited. Still more edits are required. Company is notable for technology and payments industry influence, covered independently in respected secondary sources like USA Today, NBC News and FastCompany. Randor5602 (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)— Randor5602 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Blocked Note that this account has been blocked as a sock/meat puppet. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Despite the obvious SP/SPA keep-!votes, more discussion seems needed since the other delete !votes cite no policy or guideline and merely advocate deletion based on tone.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The two editors with Keep !votes above have been blocked as sock/meat puppets. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stroke out the "keep" votes by blocked editors. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you K.e.coffman. Note that the editors also !voted on a related article's AfD on Rajat Suri and I have struck their !votes there too. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 22:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Insufficient coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The available sources cover routine news & product announcements. This (likely paid) WP:ADVOCACY can just as effectively be housed on the company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: no evidence this is paid or WP:Advocacy. This company and product is covered in-depth in technology publications like TechCrunch and appears to be commonly available in major restaurant brands where readers of Wikipedia eat. Also tone does not seem worse than other Wikipedia articles? 173.239.207.50 (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strike comment by blocked user; CU block. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with edits to add coverage. Other similar tech companies are written up on Wikipedia and deemed notable, like WePay and Hipmunk YouTooNow (talk) 05:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Another newly created account !voting for Keep? What are the chances? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them all then WP:Other stuff. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:17, 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 delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rajat Suri

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

Delete Fails WP:BASIC. Notability is not inherited, most sources are in relation to the company "E la Carte" and of those that mention Rajat, they are press releases or advertorials on behalf of the company. There is no evidence that Rajat is notable in his own right. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Article has been edited for multiple new secondary sources that are not on behalf of the company "E la Carte", and other notable connections beyond "E la Carte" such as relationship with Zimride / Lyft Randor5602 (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)— Randor5602 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment The "Keep" !vote above is from an account that was created with the sole purpose of editing the topic article and !voting here. Nevertheless. From what I can see, none the sources Randor5602 added meet the criteria for establishing notability. You added the WSJ article but it is a blog, so fails as blogs are not acceptable sources for establishing notability. The Fox Business source is an interview and therefore not independent of the subject since there's nothing to indication that the "facts" were independently verified and not just repeated. The gigaom article suffers the same way. Then you've put in a section on E la Carte and referenced a bunch of articles that are actually about the company but where Rajat might be mentioned or provide a quote. These articles are not intellectually independent, notability is not inherited, they're not in-depth and therefore fail the criteria for establishing notability (the techcrunch article, the mashable article, the thefamuanonline article, usatoday article, bizjournals article, and fastcompany article). Then you've done the same thing for a previous business of Rajat's called Zimride by adding in references to articles that are about zimride and not about Rajat. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia guidelines state that anyone may !vote , so unfair to discriminate based on this and not on the merits of the facts. The WSJ article helps to establish the subject as notable within the business world - it is not a personal blog, but an essay published in a well-known mainstream business paper on how to perform as a new business leader, which shows industry influence, a criterion for notability. The other new articles that were added do establish diverse valid secondary sources that clearly independently verified facts before writing the article, including Fast Company, GigaOm and others. These are manifestly not press releases and are written by specialized journalists in the field. Randor5602 (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)— Randor5602 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - Comment Much credit to you, an apparent new editor, for adhering to guidelines on formatting and quoting policy. Not discriminating, just asking, have you edited here before and if so, what is the other account name? Also, I'll disagree on your viewpoints on sources and leave it to the closing admin to evaluate whether those sources meet or fail the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Blocked Note that this account has been blocked as a sock/meat puppet. As such I have blanked their !vote. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 22:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Does not fail WP:GNG as the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. While Rajat Suri is primarily recognized as CEO and co-founder of E la Carte, Rajat has also been cited in articles written by well-known and reputable journalists such as Wall Street Journal providing advice to other CEOs. He is a notable person as his experience expands beyond E la Carte. User:LuckyHorse (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)— LuckyHorse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Blocked Note that this account has been blocked as a sock/meat puppet. As such I have blanked their !vote. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 22:54, 18 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 07:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 22:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 22:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No pass of WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete -- part of a WP:PROMO campaign that also includes Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E la Carte. No indications of notability or significance per available sources; just a businessman going about his business. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:26, 19 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) 00:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ugo Wallet

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

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Sources fail WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per User:HighKing. –XboxGamer22408^Talk 16:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created this page when I was new to Wikipedia and unfamiliar with the notability policies. I agree that it does not belong in an encyclopedia. Daylen (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @XboxGamer22408: and @HighKing: On second thoughts, how would you feel about merging the main ideas of the section into the TD Canada Trust article (the creator of the app)? Daylen (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Daylen, how does that fit with President's Choice Financial's use of Ugo as per the article?
    - Information about Ugo would also be included on the President's Choice Financial article. Daylen (talk) 04:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the proposed merge(s)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP. Not much here to merge. Better off improving those other articles de novo. --Bejnar (talk) 22:47, 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 merge to Tablet computer. So Why 09:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Table ordering tablet

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

Merge as agreed below. Delete I am unconvinced that "Table ordering tablet" is a notable topic (or even a "thing"). *None* of the reference headlines use that term and most use a different term: "Tabletop tablets". -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: Wouldn't a rename to Tabletop tablets be more appropriate then? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emir of Wikipedia Except is a "tabletop tablet" a "thing"? It is still just a tablet. Here's a PC World article and they're tablets with a stand? If there is such a thing, it should be part of the normal Tablet computer article and not a separate topic. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Tabletop tablet Merge to Tablet computer. I see no reason to keep the article under its existing title, but the stub-level content could be kept somewhere. Might also be a Merge candidate, but I don't know to where. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power~enwiki Would you consider a merge to Tablet computer? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that looks perfect. Changing my vote. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tablet computer: As the page creator, I would happy with this article being merged under the types section. Additionally, I am working on getting an image. Daylen (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the two tot (or is that tt?) articles, Ziosk and Presto Tablet are also up for deletion. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tablet computer Pages creator has agreed with this, so let it be done. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tablet computer -- nothing to merge; the article apparently created for promotional purposes. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and merge from Ziosk. I think the topic may be notable, see references in that other article. Merging a PR piece for a tablet with a general concept could ensure notability with less spam. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:43, 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. There's some support, but also some opposition, to merging, so I'm going to say there is no consensus on the merge. Not that there's actually anything in the article that's worth merging, but if somebody really wants to mine it for text to merge, ping me and I'll userfy it for you. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HSBC Bank Armenia

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

Just not seeing the independent coverage needed to satisfy WP:GNG, Gnews shows some press releases, some passing mentions, and little else of note. Waggie (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Suggest merge any important information with the main HSBC article. –XboxGamer22408^Talk 16:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage. This really shouldn't be merged because the content is unreferenced. SL93 (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a nn subsidiary. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to HSBC#Principal subsidiaries per WP:ATD-R. Regards So Why 09:19, 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. So Why 09:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Memoir Club

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

I can't find evidence of this publisher's notability. The company's website is hosted by blogspot.com, which isn't an encouraging sign, and it appears to be close to a self-publishing or vanity operation, which hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage to pass WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- way excessive listing of nn titles; Wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST to house this company's catalogue. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources not found; appears to be PROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:31, 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.. The arguments concerning the notability, encyclopaedic-ness etc. of the subject are basically still similar to what have already been discussed and evaluated in the last AFD. Whether, there is anything to merge from this article to the redirect-target could be looked at.(non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 08:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Washiqur Rahman

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

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Washiqur Rahman Babu

Keep, Don't redirect or merge- Was an assasination that made worldwide headine news, and not just for a few days after the incident. Other famous bloggers who faced assasination and attempted assasination knew him, he knew Avijit Roy. After his murder Asif Mohiuddin, another notable blogger who survived a machete attack spoke of him, and he knew him.(http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32701207) International media coverage continued long after the incident (March 2015), as shown here. The original article was deleted in 2015 on the grounds of lacking news coverage after the incident, but after it was deleted there was more, rendering such reason invalid. The article also exists on Zaza, German, Simple English, and Turkish language wikipedias. Consensus on the previous deletion was in no way unanimous, and the topic has come up again and in the news after the deletion. On the original deletion many argued for it to be kept. He many not have been in international worldwide news before the incident, but had presence in Bengali language media.

   http://businessnews24bd.com/trial-begins-in-blogger-washiqur-murder-case/
   http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2017/05/murdered-for-the-crime-of-blasphemy
   http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/09/bangladesh-charges-men-murder-blogger-150901131511504.html
   https://www.pressreader.com/oman/times-of-oman/20170403/281651074951590

--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first article on the topic, Washiqur Rahman Babu, was merged and redirected to Attacks on atheists in Bangladesh in April 2015 after a deletion discussion. When PlanespotterA320 created this new article on the topic in May 2017, I redirected it because [this version] did not improve upon [the redirected version] with respect to the reasons the topic was redirected.

You can read the previous discussion and closing comments yourself. PlanespotterA320's reading seems to be that the original problem was a lack of news coverage after the incident. Although that concern was raised during the discussion, my own reading is that the major problem was that Rahman was a low profile individual notable only for one event. Quite an alphabet soup of policies and guidelines were cited in arguments:

What Wikipedia is Not: WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE
Biographies of Living People (and low-profile individuals): WP:BLP1E
Notability: WP:N, WP:NEVENT, WP:ANYBIO, WP:VICTIM, WP:BIO1E

--Worldbruce (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attention participants in previous deletion discussion (AsceticRose—BabbaQ—Brandmeister—Callinus—Gurumoorthy Poochandhai—Krelnik—Longevitydude—Masem—Medeis) Attention participants in previous deletion discussion (Midnightblueowl—Nafsadh—Nahiyan8—Neutrality—Otto ter Haar—Pharaoh of the Wizards—Philg88—Sminthopsis84—Valentinejoesmith) --Worldbruce (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per previous AFD - particularly as we have Attacks on atheists in Bangladesh. We're still looking at, essentially, BIO1E as the problem. I note that this almost qualifies for CSD G4 since it is effectively recreation of previously deleted content? --MASEM (t) 16:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NYT, BBC, CNN coverage of blogger hacked to death for reasons beyond petty crime. The attempt, again, to delete this is a damnatio memoriae that is hard to take in good faith. μηδείς (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one has suggested here that victim Washiqur Rahman be deleted, or is suggesting that he should not be remembered. His death is given three paragraphs in Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh, and there are at least four redirects to take searchers there from variations of his name. However, reliable sources cover him only in connection with his murder. And they cover his murder in the broader context of other attacks on bloggers in Bangladesh. WP:BIO1E cautions against creating pseudo-biographies, the description of which goes on to say:

"An article under the title of a person's name should substantially be a full and balanced biography of that person's public life. If the person is notable only in connection with a single event, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, that person should be covered in an article regarding the event, with the person's name as a redirect to the event article placing the information in context."

--Worldbruce (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Attacks on atheists in Bangladesh. I stand by what I said when I closed the previous RFD, which is neatly summed up policy-wise by Worldbruce above. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per nom, per all above and per my comments on last AfD. Nothing changed about Rahman since the article was first was AfD'ed, now more strongly suggesting WP:1E. No merge attempt is necessary as the subject is sufficiently covered in target article Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh. --nafSadh did say 18:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fix the merger. The article contains quite different information than is available at the redirect target, Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh. Until that situation is corrected, Washiqur Rahman should not be deleted. Briefly: this proposal is premature, and as stated above, has the character of a damnatio memoriae. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per nom. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 17:31, 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. joe decker ^talk 00:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jillian Michaels (voice actress)

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

Unsourced since the beginning of Wikipedia time. Voice artists do work, this is true, but it is not all that common for them to pass the GNG. Having done a lot of voices doesn't make one notable: having one's work discussed in-depth in reliable sources does. I do not see that that's the case here; I do not find any such discussion at all. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I thought maybe nom was hyperbolizing with "since the beginning of Wikipedia time", but it turns out the article really was first created in 2003. As always, voice actors do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because some (or a lot of) roles can be listed — they get over NACTOR when they're the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage about their work in those roles. But fourteen years to infinity later, there's still not a single source being shown here besides the fact that she has an IMDb profile — which, as always, is not an automatic Wikipedia inclusion freebie either: IMDb is user-generated, so it can and does contain uncaught errors, and inclusion on there is a WP:ROUTINE distinction that every working actor in existence gets the moment they have one role to list. So no, nothing stated or sourced here is enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 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 08:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Bearcat. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:37, 18 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Threenix

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

Fails WP:GNG and guidelines at WP:NSOFT due to lack of available reliable sources. — Quasar G. 14:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Found no coverage that isn't compliant with our policies. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 17:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-admitted COI from original editor. Purely promotional page for non-notable software company. --Lockley (talk) 04:47, 9 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 Steve Sailer. Clear consensus to not keep. No consensus whether to delete or merge, given that "delete and merge" is not possible for attribution reasons. The redirect allows people to figure out editorially whether anything should be merged from the history. Sandstein 21:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sailer Strategy

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

Some political-strategy proposal, with no evidence that it's being implemented or even seriously discussed. As the inexplicably removed PROD tag put it, "brief mentions with no in-depth discussion". Calton | Talk 14:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apart from being quite the buzzword on VDARE (according to Google), I can't find much usage of the term in reputable media. Yintan 19:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge with Steve Sailer. While not notable on its own, this appears to be a legitimate concept associated with him. Reason is Immortal (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and selective merge to Steve Sailer for precisely the reasons given by Reason is Immortal.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:38, 8 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 07:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge with Steve Sailer. The entire contents of this short article are of the form "Steve Sailer said such-and-such". There is no sign that the so-called Sailer Strategy is anything other than the thoughts of Steve Sailer. We don't have separate Wikipedia articles for Harry Truman and Harry Truman's ideas, so neither should be do so here. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 07:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Steve Sailer is notable, Sailer Strategy is not even notable enough for a redirect. I don't see any content worth merging, either. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:06, 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) 02:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Schaner

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Assistant professor at Dartmouth; described as "rising" in the article, which is usually a synonym for "not there yet". Google Scholar citations do not suggest that she has had a significant impact in her field at this point; maybe someday. I had speedy-deleted the article per A7, but restored it at the request of another admin. MelanieN (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS h-index of 7 is WP:Too soon for a well cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:PROF, and the sources in the article are not independent of the subject. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. At least borderline notable, based on the citations. The actual citation record from Google Scholar is : 106, 40, 41, 34, 42, 37, 41, 28, 30, 23, 9, 7 etc. . Normally we consider anyone who has published one of more papers with citation over 100 to be notable. Economics is a field with a medium citation density, not a high citation density such as the biomedical sciences I don't know why people keep citing a h factor as indicative of anything: giving my usual example 300, 200, 150, 50, 5, 4, 3 has h of 5, but so does 6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4;the first is notable; the second is not. On the other hand , she is still an assistant professor. DGG ( talk ) 16:29, 8 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 07:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[39] gives an h-index of 7. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and lacks independent secondary source - everything seems to be the work of the subject, up to an including her resume. - GretLomborg (talk) 04:14, 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 delete. joe decker ^talk 00:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Internal Audit Department, Luxembourg

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

It appears this is an article about an individual internal department of Société Générale that may have been created in error some time ago. This is an unnecessary fork of the main article and in itself not very informative as the duties of a bank's internal audit function are outlined at very high levels. This is already covered under internal audit. The article is therefore redundant. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 11:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unsourced original research on a gov agency with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:55, 11 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 08:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As the article itself says, a firm such as Société Générale is required to have an internal audit department. Nothing provided in the article text or found by searches indicates this to be any more than a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL department in an institution. Even merging the text into a subsection such as Société_Générale#Corporate_affairs would give undue attention to the mundane. AllyD (talk) 09:54, 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 delete. So Why 09:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Blumberg

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

Non-notable tennis player. Fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG. Adamtt9 (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The infobox says it all. Career record 0-0, ranking 1362. Fails WP:GNG.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ridiculously non-notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an amateur, he's clearly not notable today. He likely will be notable in a few years, but WP:CRYSTAL. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not only does Blumberg have zero appearances in any ATP-level events (which would garner presumed notability), but he also has zero appearances in second-level Challenger events (which usually require a win to meet notability guidelines), and only one match played in third-level ITF Futures tournaments - a loss to Adam Pavlasek in 2014. His appearance(s?) in NCAA Div 1 tournaments do not meet the guidelines for team participation either, which only cover Davis Cup participants (and likely Hopman Cup, although I don't think an otherwise non-notable player has ever participated there). Whether or not NCAA participation and coverage combined with minor (but GNG-failing) participation in Challenger events could combine for notability may be up for debate in the future, but as it stands right now Blumberg doesn't even come close to meeting any of the notability guidelines. Sellyme^Talk 19:40, 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 09:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew A. Gallagher

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

Self promotional; only references are to own websites; book is not even published yet Melcous (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Shares his name with Matt Gallagher who is also an author. However Matt A is a non notable author who fails WP:GNG. The entire article reads like an advertisement and is probably intended for some pre-release publicity. Jupitus Smart 13:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assertion of notability is not supported by third-party sources. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:18, 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. Right now there's a pretty clear consensus to delete, and that's how I'll close this. There is no doubt that from an original attack/SYNTH page this has been greatly improved (thanks to NewsandEventsGuy and E.M.Gregory), but "essentially POV" wasn't the only argument brought up to delete. I cannot redirect this since there are too many options provided, even if a number of editors agree on one of them ("Protests against Donald Trump"), because E.M.Gregory makes a good argument for "Anti-Trump movement". If there is content in the current article that editors feel should be recovered to merge into another article, we can do that later--if there's agreement on it. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump resistance

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

Poorly written polemic that fails WP:NPOV, written by blocked user [40]. Example of poor sourcing used to push a POV showing only purpose of page: I had to remove a source from 2007 used to cite supposed claims for 2016 about " the liberal biased news media". Appears to have been written as a WP:BLP attack page. Sagecandor (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whole thing appears to be WP:SYNTH strung together by the personal POV of the writer. Example:
- News media outlets, that began the reporting on the unsubstantiated claim of the Trump campaign and the Russians colluding to steal the presidential election from the Democrat Party candidate, and then persisted in speculation about criminal charges and impeachable offenses. --
The cited sources for this do not mention "Trump resistance". Sagecandor (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another example: Social justice warriors (SJW’s), enabled by the academy and coddled by Hillary Clinton, who were fueled by a mix of intolerance and entitlement, began to consider what they’ll do next. (Sourced to the New York Post). -- Really ??? Sagecandor (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak KeepUnsure about this, yes there appears to be a "trump Resistance, and as we have a pages on a similar (according to at least one source) groups (like the tea party) I see no reason not to have this one. but yes it is also heavy reliant on Synthases. It needs a lot of work.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC) Some sources [41][42][43] [44] And websites dedicated to it [45][reply]
Keep but refocus? My first thought was in alignment with nom, this feels like an attack page and filled with OR, and I still think it does meet the last. However, there have been a lot of criticism of Trump of various forms and I am surprised we don't have an article on Criticism of Donald Trump's Presidency, which would be a valid topic (when careful NPOV adherence is used) and would help group all the various efforts between pre-election and post-election aspects. This article could be used as that basis but it would absolutely need refocusing to be a proper "Criticism of..." article to avoid issue with NPOV. It should heavily rely on existing articles when the do exist, eg touching on Stop Trump movement, or the appropriate Protests against Donald Trump. I do not think there is, without engaging in OR, a true "resistance" here in as there being one singular group, but there definitely are numerous criticisms towards Trump that is reflected here. Barring that, I would otherwise agree that maybe WP:TNT could apply and would alternatively !vote delete for this in favor of a better article start. --MASEM (t) 13:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Masem:I think you're right about WP:TNT in this particular case, as WP:BLP attack page riddled with POV backed up to terrible sources like Infowars.com. Sagecandor (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, there's sourcing issues too. Again, I think there's a theme here that is a valid topic if turned around into a standard en.wiki apporach, but TNT is probably best in the long run due to the sources that have been used in this current version. --MASEM (t) 13:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Masem:So how do we go about WP:TNT for WP:Attack page ? Sagecandor (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - It would be a possible result of this AFD closure. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        We could merge it to Protests against Donald Trump. Or we could TNT it, rename it to a more encyclopedic name, such as Resistance to the Trump administration, and merge the protests page into it, though that might make the article too big. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd support WP:TNT followed by redirect, needs to be deleted to get rid of the attack crap. Sagecandor (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There are a lot of sources out there that discuss the "Trump resistance" (and/or the "anti-Trump resistance" or the "anti-Trump movement"); this particular phrasing is common enough to be at least defensible as the article title. Regardless of anyone's individual views on the politics of it all, there's clearly a notable political concept there. On the other hand, this is a weak keep because the current state of the article here just makes it really, really hard to say nice things about. I'm not sure it's quite to the TNT point of no return, but I can empathize with those who do. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keeping an article requires not only that there are possible sources, which there clearly are for the phrase, but also that those sources are used to support text that meets the core content policies. There is no text here that does. Core content overrides notability and is not optional. This egregious violation of those standards needs to be deleted and a new article can be created in its place. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Protests against Donald Trump. A redirect to Indivisible movement would be WP:UNDUE. No content on this page worth merging into either of those articles. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a non-starter, people protest all the time, this is no different. — Calvin999 21:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are already a zillion articles in Category:Opposition to Donald Trump, and the significant material in this article could be easily merged into those existing articles. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Protests against Donald Trump; Wikipedia does not need (just yet) two articles on these closely related topics. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Protests against Donald Trump; because that's what Trump Resistance actually means. --Skr15081997 (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Protests against Donald Trump; 'Protests against Donald Trump' is a much better-written article about what's basically the same topic, especially in light of Lettuce's actions. --EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Came across this AfD on BLPN. The page's current content could be easily merged into the countless other Opposition to Trump articles. Meatsgains (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The present article exists solely as a POV-fork of Protests against Donald Trump. For context, see this revision of the article, which spectacularly fails WP:NPOV. The current revision has had the gross policy failures mostly removed, but there is now no reasonable scope for a separate article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete/Redirect??
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Protests against Donald Trump; But allow someone to start this again if they can skillfully add material about the topic that is different than "protests". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Protests are protests, and we should continue to cover them. The Trump Resistance movement or Anti-Trump movement, is related to the anti-Trump protests, but it is a separate and notable topic. Just as the Trump protests were a separate topic from the Trump campaign.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are not in disagreement. This could indeed by an article on the condition that a competent editor is working on it. I'm not going to try to originate text, but I can help navigate issues as they arise. Are you able/willing to take on the job of transforming this into something useful? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NewsAndEventsGuy: well, I made a start.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found this article because I was looking to see whether we had one in the wake of yesterday's shooting. The term I was searching WP for was anti-Trump, and this was the hit I got. So I looked a little further:

Future of the resistance: Where does the anti-Trump movement go from here?,Salon, 17 May 2017 [46]
Your Guide to the Sprawling New Anti-Trump Resistance Movement The Nation , February 6, 2017 [47]
The Anti-Trump Movement: Recover, Resist, Reform American Prospect, 4 April 2017 [48]
The Real Hero of the Trump Resistance? James Madison. National Review, June 14, 2017 [49]
The Trump Resistance: A Progress Report The New Yorker, 17 April, 2017 [50]
The Anti-Trump ‘Resistance’ in Red States The Atlantic, 17 February 2017, [51].

Lots more available. It's a paltry article, but Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. The topic passes WP:GNG. We just need to improve the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per E.M.Gregory. In its current state it is a lousy article but there is a lot of content that should be developed into this subject. We have a case of poor execution, not an issue with WP:N notability or WP:GNG coverage. Trackinfo (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that we need to reboot this discussion in the light of the response to yesterday's shooting. Naomi Klein: Any Efforts to Equate Hateful Violence with Trump Resistance Are Lies [52] for the defense and Ann Coulter The ‘Resistance’ Goes Live-Fire for the prosecution.[53]. It might have been possible to dismiss this movement two days ago, but the fact that the shooter was a backer of the "resistance" puts it firmly in the notable category, and none of the other articles we have is about this self-described anti-Trump "resistance" as a movement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:E.M.Gregory, I disagree for two reasons. First, it would be inaccurate and offensive for Wikipedia to suggest that the shooter represents the views of this "resistance" which almost entirely rejects violence. Second, we already have lots of articles to which this can properly redirect, including Donald Trump protests and Efforts to impeach Donald Trump. The shooter undoubtedly supported both of those, and this could be briefly mentioned in both as an extreme example. Plus we can give the shooting its very own article, 2017 Congressional baseball shooting. No need to do more than that, IMHO. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A.) I suggested only that the coverage of the shooter increases the notability of the topic, not that we should add it to the page. and B.) there is a resistance movement; it is more than a series of protests and it is not co-terminus with the list of Efforts to impeach.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN Made a start towards a proper article, Revised lede following The Nation (figured they should know,) created a substantively sourced section defining the movement, added participating organizations and a split over this within the LGBT community.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I appreciate the good work going into this piece, it seems like this is a fork of Protests against Donald Trump, etc. A merge would seem to be the ticket. Carrite (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with E.M.Gregory (and thanks for pointing out Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup, I hadn't seen that before). It needs a LOT of cleanup because it's still very POV, but it's definitely a notable topic and I don't think it's so bad that we need to blow it up and start over. Rockypedia (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Eggishorn and Sławomir Biały's reasoning. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent of those "reasonings" was four days ago; The article has changed considerably since then, and is much improved. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's a gNews search by date [54] showing that, argue as we may, the term/concept is in regular use. Note however that "resistance" and "Anti-Trump resistance" appears to be more in use the further left you look. I propose that, after this AfD closes, we move the article to Anti-Trump movement (a title that currently directs to [[Anti-Trump protests) to signify that this is a broad "movement" unified by its opposition to a single man/administration. We have articles on many of the participating groups. As I see it, the article needs work, but the notability and felt need in the press and in the general conversation for a way to discuss the broad anti-Trump movement - not merely the street protests - is clear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:04, 19 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) Lourdes 04:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rohan Rangarajan

AfDs for this article:

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

~~Fails GNG, NCRIC South Nashua (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)~~ Keep per Captain Raju's additions. South Nashua (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCRIC as per nom and WP:GNG. Domdeparis (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He passes WP:NCRIC. Greenbörg (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis: Would you please re-read the article and the third point of WP:NCRIC. He passes. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:NCRIC. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:GNG and WP:NCRIC.I found some source/ref.The reference has been added below this line:CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

@CAPTAIN RAJU: Can you check it again? He has appeared in division six or above. so why delete? Greenbörg (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CAPTAIN RAJU: Would you please re-read the article and the third point of WP:NCRIC. He passes. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greenbörg and Jack I've already changed my vote.Because of finding references/source.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm certainly no cricket expert, but doesn't he meet the third bullet point of WP:NCRIC by representing Singapore at the 2017 ICC World Cricket League Division Three?? JTtheOG (talk) 06:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in those terms he would certainly meet NCRIC. It should be noted that I disagree with the way that NCRIC is written and would always look for the GNG in any deletion case surrounding a cricketer. I have no further comment in this case. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, your comment should NOT be noted per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Follow WP:CONSENSUS at WP:CRIC re WP:CRIN. If you don't like it, propose changes at WT:CRIC. In short, put up or shut up. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- @Blue Square Thing: That's fair enough. Thanks for the clarification. JTtheOG (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss JTtheOG's question
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a question that probably merits an answer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It clearly meets the WP:NCRIC criteria so should be kept. We currently don't have sources to pass WP:GNG but it is rule of thumb to find someone who passes WP:GNG or not. Resources are always not online they could be found in local newspapers and cricket books, magazines. Greenbörg (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Point 3 of WP:CRIN (and of its WP:NCRIC summary) clearly states that anyone who has appeared as a player or umpire in at least one World Cricket League match of Division Six status or above is a notable player. This has been agreed by WP:CRIC per WP:CONSENSUS. As Greenbörg| rightly says, we do not have to justify GNG for anyone who meets NSPORTS following consensus at the village pump forum. WP:NSPORTS was not amended after that discussion and still rules that The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline (GNG) or the sport specific criteria (SSC) set forth below. WP:NCRIC is a long-accepted part of the SSC and the operative word in the ruling is or. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NCRIC. Nomination is wrong. Johnlp (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments. In fact, the nomination is disruptive. The village pump policy proposal was Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#The criteria of WP:NSPORT here are too inclusive, discussed last month, and the the RfC said not to nominate articles for deletion indiscriminately. There have been several of these indiscriminate nominations since the RfC and they have all been rejected. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Passes WP:NCRIC and per the RfC noted above. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - can we please continue to make this point clear somewhere, so that this stops happening? "..it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". Defending every single cricket biography in an NPOV context is becoming boring. The fact that we haven't had to amend the cricket criteria on NSPORTS is testament to the fact that "it just works".

Blue Square Thing, I consider you a good friend, but to claim you "don't like the way" something is done or said without wishing to make any further comment, such as how to fix it to your liking, is counterproductive to any possible debate. Bobo . 17:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I may have missed something but in the discussion about NSPORTS at the village pump I read: "There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion. There is a general unhappiness with the permissiveness of some NSPORTS criteria, but no consensus in this discussion on any specific changes to any of them."

I may have missed something but for me that means that a deletion discussion should be based on GNG rather than subject specific criteria. Domdeparis (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, because there was no consensus to change anything in NSPORTS and that includes the ruling at the top which asserts that The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline (GNG) or the sport specific criteria (SSC) set forth below. It is "either...or..." not one at the expense of the other. Furthermore, the RfC ends by saying: "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations". In other words, abide by both GNG and NSPORTS; so the only type of sportsperson who should be denied is one who fails both criteria. You started out by thinking that Rohan fails NCRIC, but he doesn't. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

but in the next paragraph of no ports it says "All information included in Wikipedia, including articles about sports, must be verifiable. In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline." It can't be clearer than that I think.Domdeparis (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the FAQs on NSPORT ? The first one is very clear about the relationship between GNG and topic specific criteria. GNG trumps it every time. Domdeparis (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An FAQ does not equate to an in-bold-top-of-main-page-ruling. If the FAQ contradicts the main page, then the FAQ needs to be revised. I'll take a look at it, however. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've looked at the FAQ, for what it's worth. You have referred to #1 only which says: "(The topic-specific notability guidelines) are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them". Two points about Rohan. First, I have already found two reliable sources (both added to the article yesterday) which meet this requirement. Second, Rohan met the requirements of CRIN only a few days before this AfD was raised and, as there is no apparent reason why his career should not continue, further sources will certainly exist in due course and the statement stipulates that sufficient time must be allowed to locate them. As for "what is sufficient time", please see FAQ #4 which says, inter alia: "There is no fixed rule, as it may differ in each specific case..... given a reasonable expectation that sources can be found..... allowing for adequate time, particularly for cases where English language sources are difficult to find". As Rohan is Singaporean, he is unlikely to receive coverage in British publications other than Wisden and the online sources already cited. He may well be mentioned in next year's Wisden re the matches he played in May so, assuming it a Wisden citation should be necessary (it isn't, because of the other two), you would have to wait until next April when the 2018 edition is published, which means ten months would be "sufficient time" to locate that citation. Jack | ^{talk page} 09:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the nominator has changed his opening delete vote to keep in his opening spiel. Can we infer this is therefore a "withdrawn nomination"? Bobo . 10:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has played in the World Cricket League at a high enough level to meet WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Pulo Mas murders

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

While tragic, doesn't pass WP:GNG, should be deleted as per WP:NOTNEWS. Was deprodded without rationale. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NOTNEWS. It is now the middle of 2017 and there is still nothing significant to add to this article. SL93 (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Here in Indonesia the news coverage has faded away. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 03:24, 18 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 [55]. --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 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 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 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 [56], [57], 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 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 delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given low input Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Husch Blackwell

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

Sources in the article are all either primary, press releases, or trivial coverage. Sources on-line are a bit better, but I could find nothing more than passing references or more PR things. Hobit (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:57, 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. So Why 07:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dhruv Bhalla

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

Non notable businessman who is the VP of a non notable company. Created by an editor who is probably about to be blocked for paid editing. Fails WP:GNG and is probably a vanity page. Jupitus Smart 09:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A man with a job at a company, though not, in appears, in a role for a profile on their website such as would enable basic verification. The list of his speaking and delegation engagements is suitable for a corporate website or LinkedIn but is not convincing evidence of biographical notability for an encyclopaedia, nor are my searches finding better. Fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GNG not met. He exists, but that's it. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:02, 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. Not much discussion, so calling this WP:SOFTDELETE -- RoySmith (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Folk Techno/Pull the Plug

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are almost exclusively self-cites: HuffPost blog by artist, record label, Bandcamp, etc. Only one that might not be is 404. No other evidence of coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:08, 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 07:46, 14 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) 01:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:49, 30 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 per A10/A7. Hut 8.5 20:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VayuSutra

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

Apart from location most of information given is already in Electronic cigarette aerosol and e-liquid. Fails WP:COMPANY Sulaimandaud (talk) 09:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. If you remove everything that was copied and pasted from Electronic cigarette aerosol and e-liquid, what's left qualifies for A7. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:03, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gian Garcia

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

Non-notable young actor. This BLP is wholly unsourced.

Note that the article's creator PAC Events Management (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has already been blocked for promotional spam. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 09:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 09:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR & WP:GNG at present its WP:TOOSOON . FITINDIA 09:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG not met. I have to ask - why was the AfD started when there was already a BLP PROD in place? It seems a bit pointless to me, BrownHairedGirl. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Exemplo347: because one factoid referenced to a trivial mention in an RS would end the BLP-PROD. Given the promotional intent behind this article, I thought it better to use AFD to bury it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero coverage in reliable sources. Virtually every hit I could find was about an American junior swimmer with the same name. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:13, 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 Speedy Delete. Speedy Deleted under WP:G7 by PhilKnight (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gourmet Gift Baskets

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

absurdly inconsequential. I would have listed for A7 except that some of the statements n the article might be interpreted as claims to significance. DGG ( talk ) 08:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 08:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 08:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG not met. The articles about the Guinness World Records they've set don't count as "significant coverage" as they aren't actually about the company. The rest is just routine stuff - a company doing what it's supposed to be doing. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think there are plenty of examples of in-depth coverage here, including The Telegraph, Newsweek, and Fox News. I actually came across them when I read about their penalty, and found a bunch of other stuff. I'm not sure I agree about the Guinness Records being worth nothing, I found those articles outside the base region of the company, which is why I thought I would take a crack at it. Most of the stuff online is written by the company but I tried to be careful to avoid any primary sources where possible. I will see if I can find any more references to help support a claim of GNG. Isingness (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you're the article's creator. In the future, I suggest trying to find the references BEFORE you publish your articles. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Corporate spam. References provides are mostly advertorials and fail WP:ORGIND. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Looks like the author just threw every reference they could find into the article. The filed complaint by Michael Jackson's estate over the kingofpop.com domain is probably more notable but Comments on sources below:
- New Hampshire Union Leader article is an advertorial complete with history/problem/photos/quotes/financial info and projections. Fails WP:ORGIND.
- This mixergy article is labelled a "case study" but in actuality, is a video advertisement. Fails WP:ORGIND.
- Another New Hampshire Union Leader article that solicits reactions from local business owners about the impact of a "harsh winter". It is an inconsequential interview and quote an the article fails WP:CORPDEPTH
- inc.com article fails WP:ORGIND as it is a transcript of an interview.
- NH Business Review article fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is a top 500 list which includes the company name
- thenation.com article fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is a mention in passing in relation to moving down and up Google's search results.
- Google Books result fails as it is simply referencing the inclusion in inc.com's top 500
- Another NHUL article (advertorial) that fails WP:ORGIND
- Yet another NHUL article that mentions in passing that "work is nearing completion at a new 120,000 square foot building in Exeter for GourmetGiftBaskets.com ..." Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- And another NHUL article that mentions the company in passing from Executive Council minutes with "Authorized the Community Development Finance Authority to award the town of Exeter $499,000 in federal Community Development Block Grant money to assist GourmetGiftBaskets.com with purchasing equipment at its new facility on Epping Road in Exeter." Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
- This article fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is a routine business announcement and fails WP:ORGIND as it is a Press Release written by the company.
- This law360 article and this foxnews article reports the Michael Jackson estate suing KingOfPop.com (owned by the GGB) because the name is too similar with MJ moniker. Fails WP:ILLCON
- latinpost.com article includes GGB products as a suggestion for a holiday gift basket. It is not in-depth coverage and mostly copies product descriptions from their website. Not in-depth coverage.
- reviewjournal.com article fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it merely mentions the company in passing.
- This Christian Science Monitor article fails WP:CORPDEPTH and [[WP:ORGIND] as the article includes 3 sentences which are quotes from a company officer
- This miaminewtimes article fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it merely discusses some of the products on sale.
- this thedailymeal article fails as the article is not independent (says at the end that "coverage made possible by participating in a sponsored tasting")
- This telegraph article is the Guinness Record giant cupcake. In my opinion, it is a corporate advert and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. These types of articles fail the criteria for establishing notability. The article is really about the cupcake, not the company.
- This newsweek article fails for the same reason. Another corporate advert, this time for the Largest Iced Coffee.
Finally, I could not get access to p.11 of the book weird-o-pedia so no comment on that one. Of the above sources, other editors may be of the opinion that the Guinness records and the Michael Jackson lawsuit meet the criteria for establishing notability but until I see a rational argument, I am of the opinion that there isn't enough in those articles to support a Keep !vote. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the content belongs on the company web site, not here. Wikipedia is not an avenue for promotion for unremarkable private businesses. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:46, 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. No prejudice to merging, which can be attempted/discussed through normal channels. postdlf (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries at Warner Park

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

A list for a particular cricket grounds is over-specialization. I see we have others. I don't thing they make any sense either. A list by team, that would make much more sense DGG ( talk ) 08:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 08:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is wrong. Citing the main international stats for a particular cricket ground is very precious. If you think it is no point, so according to your view, citing centuries for cricketers is also not worth. So delete all the centuries cited in each players' article. Providing centuries of each venue is worth just like a player scores a century to his career. Also, it is about international matches and international centuries. I don't think any bad about the articles. So keep them and edit in future. Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 02:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Cricket statistics for particular grounds ("fastest century at X", "lowest score by Y at Z") are kept in the same way as they are for teams, due I presume to historical quirks in the different grounds, which would argue for notability to me. Whether it's an entirely encyclopedic subject I can't be sure, so I'm happy to be convinced in either direction over the course of the AfD. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It could be merged to Warner Park Sporting Complex; that's not true of some lists of centuries for other more frequently used grounds, for what it's worth. Afraid I'm not sure if it's encyclopedic either. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know 'other stuff exists' isn't usually an argument against deletion. However in this case it might be. There are umpteen lists of this nature, covering every international cricket ground I can think of (and lots I didn't think of). Many of these lists are long-standing. This suggests to me that there's a consensus that lists of this kind are appropriate for the encyclopaedia. Neiltonks (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not been able to find a similar AfD discussion related to international cricket centuries at a particular ground. Find one if you can. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may not apply in this case. There are other articles too such as List of international cricket centuries at Lord's. Ajf773 (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I can see a lot of space on main article and we can keep this article on the main until it becomes large enough to separate. Greenbörg (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there is no precedent for these "List of centuries at x" articles, I propose delete based on WP:NOTMIRROR as this content can be uplifted from the ESPNCricinfo website. Ajf773 (talk) 18:21, 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 07:44, 14 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) 01:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tend towards delete on the grounds of WP:NOTMIRROR, because I don't believe that a list of every century scored in international cricket is notable in an encyclopaedia, and because, in general, the content could be more usefully summarised at the article about the ground. Summarised rather than copied. Unlike the article creator I don't believe, either, that it is always appropriate to add tables of centuries etc... to articles about players - I would much rather see sensible prose summaries in the majority of cases. I could be convinced otherwise if someone can show definitive notability of a list of all scores of greater than 100 (and, by extension, five wicket hauls etc...). Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Warner Park Sporting Complex. Definitely NOT delete because the info is useful but probably in the wrong place. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The last relist has not really made consensus much clearer so I'm relisting this a third time. Consensus seems to be slightly in favor of keeping this in one form or another but further discussion is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 19:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unnecessary cross-categorisation and an indiscriminate collection of information, which Wikipedia is WP:NOT. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main article about the ground. Does not justify a separate article. Johnlp (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Union Norway

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

Fails WP:GNG. Wholly unsourced article, apparently translated from no:Pakistansk Forening Norge, which is also unsourced. The organisation does exist -- it has a Facebook page -- but I haven't found any independent reliable sources, let alone significant coverage therein. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 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 07:43, 14 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) 01:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; no sources on the page and no reason to believe this group is notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. It lacks sources to establish notability under WP:GNG and I cannot find any WP:RS for it. - GretLomborg (talk) 13:24, 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 keep. So Why 07:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coraline Ada Ehmke

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Coraline Ada Ehmke

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

Lacks Notability, Vanity Article CamelMike (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sourcing to meet the WP:GNG. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. There are two or three reliable sources in there, but there's still the notability problem. Creation history and tone seem promotional. Also the article refers to its subject by first name. --Lockley (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The first point is a fair reason to delete an article, so I won't argue it; but it's silly to argue an article should be deleted for the rest of those reasons when they could be easily fixed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Y'know what, I'm going to stay out of this particular conversation. --Lockley (talk) 07:21, 5 June 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)}}} 23:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per GorillaWarfare. Ckoerner (talk) 03:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To expand as I was editing via mobile earlier. There are 17 inline citations to reliable sources in the article and multiple unused sources in Google News. I addressed first name concern. Ckoerner (talk) 22:13, 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. If somebody wants to create the redirect on their own, that's fine, but I don't think I can reasonably call that the consensus here. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agência O Globo

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

Organisation does not meet WP:GNG by inheriting notability from its subsidiaries (e.g. O Globo). Clear WP:COI by article creator. I've tried to engage positively on user's talk page to raise concerns and encourage better content and WP:RS. No references have yet been forthcoming, and a similarly named newly-created page on pt.wikipedia does not seem to suggest sources other than business-related ones which would meet WP:ORGIND if used here. There are many Google results referring to Agência O Globo, but seemingly as the disseminator of news, not as news in itself. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self promotion. Legacypac (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, good logic. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Grupo Globo#News Agency per WP:ATD. Notability is not inherited but it is already mentioned at the proposed target. Regards So Why 07:41, 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 despite multiple relists. Before renominating, interested editors should discuss whether a merger to a summary article for the mythology of the show can be a better alternative to outright deletion per WP:ATD-M. So Why 07:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kobol

AfDs for this article:

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

Simply put, not a notable fictional entity. This is a plot summary, and all sources I see are plot summaries as well. PS. The box to prior AfD discussion seems borked here, the relevant link would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cylon War but that was a procedural keep due to mass nomination. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:GNG; this is significantly more notable than the other articles in the bulk nomination IMO. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument. I explained why this is not notable (no sources discussing this concept except primary/plot summary sources). Please provide links to sources discussing this outside primary/plot summary context if you want to argue this meets GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can look for references, I suspect they will be in the context of articles discussing BSG in general, rather than specifically about Kobol. Would that be sufficient? Power~enwiki (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, it depends. The problem is that while we can find some mentions in passing, plot summaries ("Kobol was a planet...") are not good enough. We need to show significance outside BG universe. Ex. "Kobol, inspired by X mythology, has been used as a plot device of the Y form, and inspired A and B." And this has to be worth more than one sentence or otherwise, like Eastern Alliance, the best we can do is to merge the one sentence of real world significance ("EA was an allegory for the Soviet Union") to the main BG article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Note that in the context of science fiction Battlestar Galactica is BSG, while BG are the Bene Gesserit from Dune (franchise). Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the obvious difference is that Kobol is relevant in both series of Battlestar, not just the first one. [58] may be the type of reference you're looking for. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, BG is used for this series, I am sure. Anyway, User:Power~enwiki, I'd invite you back to look at the sources we found (or pretty much lack of them), in light of your earlier comments. Do you still think this topic deserves a stand-alone article instead of 2-3 sentence mention in the main article on BG(BSG)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep "Battlestar Gallactica" and Mormon Theology (snippet view only), Research Note: Rejecting Monotheism? Polytheism, Pluralism, and Battlestar Galactica (again, no full text) both appear to discuss Kobol in terms of LDS mythology appropriated for BSG. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of those even mentions the word Kobol in the available 'snippets'. Please quote at least a sentence showing non-plot discussion of the subject. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jclemens: Update. I was able to access both sources through my university. In the 1st one, Kobol is discussed on second page of this 5-page article in two sentences. First one is a citation from the Mormon scripture on Kolob, second one states that "It appears that both the Lords of Kobol and Kolob have ordained the same governing structure for mankind." That's pretty much is it. So this is just a mention in passing, no in-depth treatment here. In the 2nd one, we get several sentences on the 1st page, no coverage besides that. The sentences read: "Thehumans had a pantheon of deities, the Lords of Kobol, which seemed to matchelements of Mormon theology and suggest the plurality of God", "He has, however, developed the mythology of the Lords of Kobol into apolytheistic system drawn primarily from Greco-Roman mythology. ", and finally "hese deities, like the ancient Greek and Roman pantheons,are related through various social and/or kinship structures and reside (orresided) together in one realm—Kobol. (It is unclear in the series where theGods currently reside, as Kobol, a planet, was discovered by the humancolonists in ruins.) " I don't think those three sentences show notability of Kobol. But I can certainly see how an entire paragraph if not more in the BG article could discuss the religion/mythology of the series, as inspired by Mormon/etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for finding those. No, those aren't bare mentions. If I wanted bare mentions, there area a bazillion of them in episode reviews for Kobol's Last Gleaming. While I wish each were longer, they do seem to substantially say exactly what I inferred from the snippet views. My Keep opinion stands, although if we're going to make a consolidated 'mythology of BSG' article, I would support an appropriate (i.e., non-AfD) merge discussion. Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sigh. First, the entire real world impact of Kobol in BSG can be summed up in 1-2 sentences (it has been inspired by Mormon religion/mythology). That's it. There's nothing more. This doesn't need a dedicated article. All the unreferenced, in-universe fancruft here is good for is for WP:TNTing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note I agree with the nominator that Kobolds in Gaming has nothing to do with the fictional planet from BSG. Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea what you are talking about. Seems like you are down to straw man arguments. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think he's simply registering his agreement that the "prior AfD discussions" box at the top lists AfDs that are irrelevant to this one. Mz7 (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed. I disagree with you often enough, Piotrus, that I go out of my way to say when I think you've got it right. Jclemens (talk) 06:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet GNG. I agree with Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus It needs sources discussing this outside primary/plot summary context and fan stuff. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I agree with the nominator, Kobolds (little Goblin creatures) in D&D - nothing to do with the planet in BSG! Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I am unable to get at the full text of either article that Google Scholar noted as relevant with the tools at my disposal, which are not inconsequential, but neither journal seems to have full text available from either university library to which I have access. GNG cannot be not met when we have articles we cannot get at--per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You cannot assume that the sources are relevant. If you can access them and they show relevance, say so. Otherwise all you are saying "this page I cannot see except heading/etc. seems to contain that word and was found through a search engine". Well, though, but the fact that this word is mentioned somewhere in the source doesn't mean anything for notability. You have no sources, still. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do be sure and read WP:PAPERONLY and WP:SOURCEACCESS sometime. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Jclemens (talk) 06:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's irrelevant, as I am not saying there are no sources. There may be sources, but so far neither you nor nobody else have found them, and the burden of proof is on those wishing to keep said content. WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is an invalid argument. Either find and present them, at which point we agree we have them, or this topic is unsourced and thus fails WP:V/WP:GNG. Those are binary outcomes, there is no middle ground. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - (My need to reply mooted by you finding access to the sources and reporting on them, above) Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Except I didn't find sources. I accessed what you claimed to be sources and found that they offer only trivial, in passing, coverage of this topic, and as such are not sources. There are no sources showing notability of this concept. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to encourage a consensus to form.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I might support a merge/rename to a new Mythology of Battlestar Galactica page. This content has enough material to be covered beyond the main Battlestar Galactica page, but I see no existing merge targets. I see coverage in respect to it being a MacGuffin, and in its relation to Mormon theology, but everything else I find is in-universe relevance. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:01, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Littman

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

Fails WP:BIO. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Also self promotion and conflict of interest as the article is about its creator. The1337gamer (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A search for "Jay Littman" turned up three notable/reliable sources... but none of them are about Jay Littman the video game developer. The resume style of the article doesn't provide a good starting place for improvements anyway; even if I thought the subject met notability standards, WP: TNT would be appropriate.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:52, 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 07:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources except unreliable MobyGames and the writing is unreadable. –Cognissonance (talk) 10:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. WarBirds is the closest redirect target, based on this interview, but he isn't mentioned by name and his role is not described as significant enough to warrant mentioning. czar 20:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Easily the article is for self promotion, lacks third-party independent coverage and the article is created by a user of the same name. TheDeviantPro (talk) 02:20, 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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. After two relists and with a reasonable level of participation we are all over the place. IMO a further relisting is unlikely to bring clarity to this discussion. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lilltjärnen (Frostviken, Jämtland, 720074-142259)

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

There's no indication why these lakes are notable, and they certainly aren't notable due to their size. According to lakes of Sweden, there are "over 97,500 lakes larger than 2 acres (8,100 m2)". According to the article, this lake has an area 0.0321 km2 (32.1 m2), over two orders of magnitude smaller than the largest hundred thousand lakes. There'd have to be another compelling argument for its significance, and I'm simply not seeing it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 0.0321 km^2 is 32,100 m^2, not 32.1 m^2. So it's easily in the top 100,000. But so are 99,999 other lakes. That doesn't make it notable, but at least get the math right. Smartyllama (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whatever the actual size, there's no sign of significant coverage in WP:RS. Most searches turn up a village or kindergarten with the same name rather than the lake. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we love Sweden, but if every "LittleTarn" (my translation) is to have an article, we might as well found a TarnsWiki or an InsigGeoFeaturesWiki for true devotees. No, being a minor geographical feature does not of itself guarantee notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GEO. The other above seems to use a WHOCARES rationale. But that is not relevant. This article definitley needs references and any kind of expansion but it is part of the Geography section of Wikipedia. A lake or a geographic place is not notable or not notable, it is geography. And the admin or user that closes this AfD should consider that even if Delete is in majority here. A article in SvWik exists so that is also an indicator that this place is just not "another spot in Sweden". BabbaQ (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean WP:NGEO or perhaps WP:GEOLAND, not the Geographical coordinates Wikiproject. Even in that case, the statement you are apparently trying to make that geographical places are exempt from notability is not backed up by that guideline: ...geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable. Emphasis in original. The challenge to notability has been stated; there need to be sources presented that establish notability and not mere existence. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The ordinary (and, I think, legal) meaning of presumed is that something will be treated that way unless there is evidence to show the contrary. This allows for the possibility that a truly thorough search would find no evidence -- this would include print as well as online sources in relevant languages. There is no assertion that such as search was done. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Truly" is a weasel word within the meaning of the act, does it include a trawl of forgotten mediaeval manuscripts in minor Danish monasteries or whatever. However, a careful and thorough google search, with knowledge of Swedish, fails to find anything usable. This is a very minor geographic feature. If you are in sophistical mood, recall that a headland, bay, or creek on that minor tarn is also a feature. Include each of them as separate articles - that way madness lies. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG also got it the wrong way around. It's not that geographical features are presumed to meet WP:GNG. It's that when a feature meets WP:GNG, it's presumed to be notable. This tarn doesn't meet WP:GNG as far as I can see. Sjö (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NGEO: "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." (My italics.) There is no information beyond statistics and coordinates, not even in the Swedish article, and it appears that there is none to be found. WP:NGEO points to WP:GNG and says also that a geographical feature that meets WP:GNG isn't guaranteed to be notable. This tarn doesn't even meet WP:GNG. Sjö (talk) 08:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NGEO, geographic places are generally notable unless there is a compelling reason otherwise, which has not been given. Smartyllama (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: Did you read the shortcut you provided? It says: Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable. I hope you're not saying these tarns are populated! Sjö provided the relevant bullet point above. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:17, 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 07:34, 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. So Why 07:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Paris Connection

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BOOKCRIT or WP:GNG Amisom (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable book. I would say redirect, but the crossover book series doesn't have an article. SL93 (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notaiblity.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:51, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 19:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mt. Hood Independent Film Festival

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

Film festival that appears to have existed for only three or four years (it no longer appears on the website of its sponsoring organization). Sources in the article are limited to the sponsoring organization and local press coverage. Internet searching provided nothing more than additional local coverage and passing mentions. The festival is non-notable and does not satisfy either the general notability guidelines or WP:NORG. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All sources appear to be self-references or purely WP:LOCAL. No sign of significant coverage in independent sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice essay. Of course, under it we can delete many topics without national headlines. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:32, 14 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) 02:06, 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 no consensus. Despite three relists, there is no consensus whether to keep, merge/redirect or delete. Consensus seems to be to keep it in one form or another but whether that's as a stand-alone article or merged somewhere was not resolved here. Fortunately, that can be discussed at the talk page. So Why 20:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rogers Blood

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

Unfortunately, he doesn't satisfy WP:SOLDIER. Neither a Silver Star (at the cost of his life) nor a ship or two named after him suffice. A merge and redirect to USS Rogers Blood seems appropriate. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - disagree. Having a vessel named in your honor should be a sign of lasting notability. SOLDIER doesn't trump GNG. Having a named vessel leads to ongoing coverage (in books, articles, etc.) of the namesake.Icewhiz (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That hasn't been the case in the past, including at least one Afd I started. Also you can't inherit notability from coverage of your namesake. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I dont see anything that would pass a threshold for a stand-alone article, a mention in the ship article would suffice. MilborneOne (talk) 17:28, 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 07:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteas unsourced original research and a tribute page. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into ship article per nom. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Icewhiz. Having a warship named after you is sufficient to ring the WP:N bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - getting a destroyer escort or a larger ship named after you is a big a deal, or at least evidence of notability. Bearian (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge useful content to the article about the operational ship named after him. He certainly served with gallantry and honor, and died far too young, as have uncounted millions of soldiers. He does not meet WP:SOLDIER. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: unfortunately, the subject does not seem notable enough for a stand-alone article. Nevertheless, I believe any reliably sourced information should be merged to the article on the ship that was commissioned, with the link relating to the Marine then becoming a redirect. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Assuming this gets merged and redirected, which article should it get merged into? There have been 2 warships named in his honor: USS Rogers Blood (DE-555) and USS Rogers Blood (APD-115). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natg 19 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, only one was completed and commissioned: USS Rogers Blood (APD-115), so that would be the target of the redirect in my opinion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd add it to the dab page as "USS Rogers Blood has been the name of more than one United States Navy ship named after Marine Corps First Lieutenant Rogers Blood, who was killed leading a charge against the Japanese defenders of Engebi Island in World War II, for which he was awarded the Silver Star." Clarityfiend (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Balderdash Puppets

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

Nothing here sounds notable as a theatre company. No significant coverage in independent sources. Boneymau (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing found in GNews and GBooks coverage. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 14:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a promo blurb cited to non independent sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:55, 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. No consensus to redirect but if a redirect target emerges, anyone is as usual free to create one. So Why 07:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fender Tucker

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of an editor and publisher, referenced solely to his publishing company's own primary source website about itself with no evidence of reliable source coverage in media shown at all. This has been flagged for notability since 2011, and has existed since 2005, without ever having a single valid source added at all — but a publisher needs to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG, and is not entitled to an automatic inclusion freebie just because he exists. Note that first discussion took place in 2005 — and even then, it closed as no consensus because of a 50-50 keep-delete split (which is hilarious, considering how awful our content standards were in 2005.) Bearcat (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Loadstar, which Tucker was the editor of. I have to concur that there is no evidence of meeting notability requirements, and we cannot allow biographies of living people to remain without reliable sources. MartinJones (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. WP:ANYBIO criteria not met. --Rpclod (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I was going to say: redirect to Ramble House which is the subject's current venture, but that article does not cite any sources either. Better off deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:48, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Thompson

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

Fails WP:NHOOPS and GNG. Upon further review, Thompson was drafted by the semi-pro American Basketball Association (2000-present), not the ABA of the 1960s and 70s. His stint with the ValleyDawgs also does not contribute to HOOPS. Essentially, the subject is a semi-pro player whose only significant coverage is a Times article in the 90s. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 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 06:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Rpclod (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to encourage wider participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:46, 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 07:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gleason Fournier

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 03:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:28, 28 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 04:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet hockey notability criteria. Played 68 games in AHL (fully professional minor league, which requires 200 games played for notability) and 237 games in QMJHL and 128 games in ECHL lower-level leagues, but without preeminent honors.--Rpclod (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per research done by the first two editors. We have standards for a reason. Legacypac (talk) 07:47, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nesrine Malik

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

subject fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. Could only find her posts on news outlets and mentions on relatively primary sources which I think isn't enough to establish notability. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sudan-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:18, 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 04:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - references are primarily by the subject, not about the subject. The few that quote the subject are fairly peripheral. Perhaps too soon.--Rpclod (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:44, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Schepke

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NHOCKEY. Fails WP:N and WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:43, 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 07:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG, all coverage is routine and stat-based (ex. [59]). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: found a fair amount of WP:ROUTINE coverage, but nothing significant or non-local to indicate GNG passes. Yosemiter (talk) 20:49, 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. with WP:NPASR. No further discussion took place despite another relist and as such, it's unclear whether Jclemens' !vote could have changed consensus. I cannot preclude that it could, so I'm closing this as no consensus. So Why 07:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TeeKay-421

AfDs for this article:

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

Fanclub. There is very little to suggest notability (both for WP:NORG and WP:GNG). Last AfD mentioned press coverage in Dutch, but it seems pretty low-key. Still, I do get some hits like [60] and [61], so it seems borderline. From what I can make of the first article linked, through Google Translate, it seems based on the Wikipedia entry and/or a press release; this is hardly independent reporting or analysis of significance, just repetition of base facts from Wikipedia's article (probably copied from the club website and press releases). That may not be enough to make them encyclopedic. Would be nice to discuss it again, 8 years down the road. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not passing WP:NORG and we have removed many more notable clubs before. Legacypac (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:LINKSTOAVOID: "one should generally avoid providing external links to *** Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" Presumably the same holds for the fansite as the subject of an article. --Rpclod (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it's hard to evaluate sources not in any language I speak, it is clear that the organization's publication is regarded as a significant source and is quoted by English press. Combine that with everything else I can see in the Google News search above, it appears that the GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to hopefully enable a definitive consensus to be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:43, 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. Despite multiple relists, no clear consensus emerged. It seems like the subject should be kept in one form or another but how exactly could not be determined. So Why 07:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pansy Craze

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

The title is a neologism that appeared in one 1994 book; the very few other references all quote that book, and the term has not caught on. The article itself is a compilation of mini-biographies but there is no unifying focus. More detail can be found at Talk:Pansy Craze#Neologism.2C and original research.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Looking at the usage in books and scholarly works, the term is likely notable, through I couldn't find a proper definition anywhere. The article does seem to have major OR issues, and its narrow definition of the term as related to 1930s seems to contradict the sources I see which seem to talk of a longer time period. I am not sure if WP:TNT deletion would be needed here, of if this can be salvaged, but I do disagree with saying this is a non-notable neologism; this term, indeed likely created by Chauncey, has nonetheless garnered sufficient use to suggest it can likely be properly defined. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:47, 15 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, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the article is synthesis and original research as written. There is some scholarly use of the term, but generally referring to the 1920s rather than the 1930s. I support keeping the term as a redirect target; Timeline_of_LGBT_history#1920s is minimally acceptable. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist - not enough participants
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This is certainly a niche term, but given that it was used historically and represents a specific and identifiable social movement I think this would be better marked for improvement rather than deletion. Relevant information would be lost, or a large amount of specialized info would need to be added to more general articles on the history of homosexuality in America, if it were removed. There's really no need to remove relevant and specific niche articles that meet the criteria for notability. TheGrinningViking (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @TheGrinningViking: I'm not against a 'keep', if that's what's correct here, but can you please elaborate on your "given that it was used historically"—was it really? From what I see, it's one guy in one book, and a few repeats. If by "used historically" you mean, "a few people used it [but it never caught on]" then I guess you're right, it was used historically. But the number of terms that are used a few times and never catch on is limitless, and I question whether they deserve an article, or even a mention. It's a feather in an academic's cap, if they come up with a term that gets picked up on, but if a couple of their friends or colleagues quote them here and there, and then it goes nowhere afterwards, this is not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, the way I see it. But I may be misunderstanding the criteria for notability, which is why I ask for clarification about what you meant. Mathglot (talk) 06:30, 8 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 or banned user in violation of block or ban. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sameera Abdulaziz Sullivan

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

most of the cited sources are not reliable. reliable ones only namechecking the subject. Saqib (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 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 07:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have deleted as created by a sock that will have previously blocked accounts Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:40, 18 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) 01:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Gospodinova

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

Not notable female ice hockey player, fails WP:HOCKEY, WP:GNG and WP:WOMEN. AaronWikia (talk) 00:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. AaronWikia (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. AaronWikia (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. AaronWikia (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AaronWikia (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete:~~ She played for the Bulgarian women's team and represented her country at the 2010 Winter Olympics Women's Qualification, but I cannot find the source of any league does she played in. AaronWikia (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- AaronWikia Please strike the !vote while retaining the comment. Per WP:AFDLIST "Nominations already imply a recommendation to delete the article, unless the nominator specifically says otherwise, and to avoid confusion nominators should refrain from explicitly indicating this recommendation again in the bulleted list of recommendations." Rlendog (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professional ice hockey player for the Bulgarian national team, and article is relevant to women's sports and ice hockey. Article definitely needs some serious clean-up and additional references, but there are sources showing her involvement in the Bulgarian team (eg. IIHF) and other sources may need to be translated from English. While I understand you may be referring to WP:NHOCKEY/LA, the guideline does not include women's ice hockey leagues (eg. the NWHL and CWHL are not mentioned). Article does fit WP:ATHLETE in general.Boopitydoopityboop (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. If not for the fact that she plays / played on the national team, she would be failing NSPORT. But she still fails GNG. Maybe some Bulgarian readers could find some in-depth coverage on her - interviews, articles about, etc.? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete National team players are only notable if they played in a top-level competition, such as the Olympics themselves (not qualification) or the top level at the World Championships (not a lower division). She did neither, so she fails WP:NHOCKEY. That leaves WP:GNG, which she also fails as far as I can tell. I'd be willing to reconsider if someone can provide sources. Smartyllama (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, as a frequent editor of international tournaments I wish I could agree with the comments of Boopitydoopityboop, however they are inaccurate. She is not professional, only the NWHL is fully professional and she is no where near that caliber. Even if WP:NHOCKEY does not apply, GNG or WP:WOMEN would. WP:ATHLETE says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below". For an amateur athlete who has neither competed in anything remotely close to a high level, or achieved any kind of distinction, I am at a loss as to how she could fit it "in general". In men's play, an amateur athlete who has played at the highest level is presumed to be notable, I don't understand how a women who plays at the lowest level would have the same standing.18abruce (talk) 23:15, 19 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 Power Rangers. Anyone may retarget these to more specific articles, but note WP:XY. (non-admin closure) f e minist 02:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Power Rangers. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aisha Campbell

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

Completely unsourced article that is nothing, but overly detailed plot summaries. Nothing proves this Power Ranger character meets WP:GNG, especially since she completely disappeared from the franchise after just 1 1/2 seasons. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also about Power Ranger character articles that are unsourced, almost all plot, and do not meet our notability guidelines.

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 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect. As written, zero indication of notability, pure plot summary. Soft deletion through redirect (to Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie?) probably best. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. Redirect would be all right, but don't really see the point. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to their respective series/films - their names are plausible search terms, and short 'biographies' of characters are generally included with series articles. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect where to? The series article, the movie article or a new article for such characters (like other shows have)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's really nothing to salvage for other articles. If redirected, I would say just redirect to Power Rangers and let interested editors redirect them to other articles as needed. TTN (talk) 20:09, 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. Despite the sources mentioned later, consensus is that this person does not meet the notability guidelines at this point. So Why 07:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katie McHugh

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

As far as I can tell (and find) she's only 'famous' for being fired a few days ago. Doesn't meet the notability criteria, and there's also WP:NOTNEWS. Yintan 07:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Only notable for being fired and tweeting about it. Other than that she's just a run of the mill racist, one of many. Neiltonks (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She wasn't notable before she was fired; she's not notable now that she has been. — D. Wo. 13:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If necessary to document, should be noted on Breitbart page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironpaw (talk • contribs) 14:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure her firing is even notable enough to be mentioned on the Breitbart page.--Calton | Talk 14:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ONEEVENT. There is almost no coverage of her in reliable sources prior to her termination.- Mr X 14:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her accomplishments and background do not merit a BLP. Most of the sources are self-published, irrelevant, and verging on tabloid. Per the standards: Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. . — Mrpabesteves 15:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. !Votes based on the argument that McHugh is only notable for being recent fired by Breitbart should be disregarded since they're verifiably incorrect. Here are some reliable sources with significant pre-firing coverage:

Boggioni, Tom (September 17, 2015). "Slaves built the US the way cows built McDonalds and other historical facts from a Breitbart editor". The Raw Story.
Grove, Lloyd (March 1, 2016). "How Breitbart Unleashes Hate Mobs to Threaten, Dox, and Troll Trump Critics". The Daily Beast.
Harkinson, Josh (October 27, 2016). "Meet the White Nationalist Trying To Ride The Trump Train to Lasting Power". Mother Jones.
Weigel, David (August 20, 2016). "'Racialists' are cheered by Trump's latest strategy". The Washington Post. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper= (help)
Sherman, Elisabeth (November 23, 2016). "10 Most Despicable Stories Breitbart Published Under Bannon". Rolling Stone.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Neiltonks, Dwo, Ironpaw, Calton, MrX, and Mrpabesteves in case they wish to opine on my research. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry DrFleischman, but on review, I stand by my original comment. Raw Story is not a very good source. The other sources only mention the subject in passing and lack and meaningful biographical detail.- Mr X 18:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. I just don't think there's enough in depth coverage of her. Neiltonks (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. My decision stands; nothing really there. --Calton | Talk 01:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I reviewed the sources listed above and I don't believe that, collectively, they represent SIGCOV. They are passing mentions mostly confirming the subject's position at Breibart and that she indeed holds racist views. However, the totality of coverage does not convince me that the subject has encyclopedia notability just yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (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 delete. So Why 07:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard memes

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

This event appears to fail the notability criterion at WP:EVENT, particularly with respect to geographic coverage and persistence. VQuakr (talk) 07:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The title is misleading: it doesn't describe memes, it's an article about a minor incident at Harvard where some prospective students had offers rescinded. This is not a major event with lasting historical significance or international coverage, hence failing WP:EVENT. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's international coverage; today I saw an article in the Jerusalem Post about it: link. I'm not sure what the title can be called, but I'm fine with any name Ethanbas ^(talk) 18:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's still a long, long way from an event of "lasting historical significance". VQuakr (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"or", not "and", Mr. Quakr Ethanbas ^(talk) 19:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? VQuakr (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly not significant. Might be worth mentioning on the page for Gina Grant college admissions controversy or some other college admissions-related article.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable transient item from the news, no lasting significance in itself. --Lockley (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:00, 10 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 List of tallest buildings in Bandung. With none of the listed buildings being individually notable and no evidence of LISTN being satisfied, the deletion arguments are stronger. No prejudice to a relist for List of tallest buildings in Medan, as its late addition to this AFD went almost entirely unnoticed. postdlf (talk) 00:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Bandung

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

Prod removed by page creator without comment. My concern was Buildings simply not tall enough to make this a notable list Gbawden (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probable delete It's not really the height that matters, it's the notability. There's lots of articles online and published about tall buildings in London or Doha, to take 2 examples, but not much about Bandung; the article is largely cited to a database of construction projects. Almost none of the buildings have Wikipedia articles, so it couldn't even function as an index/list of notable buildings in Bandung. I realise there may be sources in Indonesian, Sundanese, Javan, or other local languages, and that we need to improve Wikipedia coverage of non-western nations. But it doesn't appear to be a notable topic for a list. I'm happy to be proved wrong with references and citations. Any referenced content could be merged to Bandung, but there's a lot of unreferenced entries. Could redirect either to Bandung or List of tallest buildings in Indonesia (which includes a lot of notable buildings). --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, got to agree with Colapeninsula with regards to notability. None of the buildings are notable and the only sources that are provided to affirm height are primary sources, no indication of importance of the list article in general nor any of the entries. Ajf773 (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating this list of non notable buildings

Comment I hate the constant drip, drip, drip of AFDs about individual tall buildings and about lists of tallest buildings. This process of considering, and sometimes deleting, isolated buildings or lists seems guaranteed to ensure uneven coverage in Wikipedia and legitimate frustration on the part of contributors. I particularly hate the deletion of lists, because having lists helps by heading off creation of separate articles about buildings. There needs to be a good RFC or other discussion about the big topic area, towards ensuring consistent editing. --do ncr am 18:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bandung's metropolitan area has population over 8 million, bigger than that of most cities in the U.S. and U.K. (where most AFD editors probably hail from). The list has multiple buildings over 100 metres (330 ft) which is a significant threshold. It is pointless and wasteful to delete list-articles like this. The topic of "tallest buildings in ..." is well-established as notable. One could quibble you want to merge this into List of tallest buildings in Indonesia but that is not proposed and that would not be an improvement, as there is enough separate info about Bandung alone. It is clearly better to have a list-article than separate articles about each of the buildings. There is no controversial or contested information in the article, so I do not see any problems with the sourcing, either. Does anyone seriously dispute whether building X is 128 meters tall or whatever? --do ncr am 18:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Bandung - I'm not seeing much, if any, coverage about buildings in Bandung specifically. However a short section on Bandung's article probably wouldn't hurt (as long as it isn't given too much undue weight), and would probably be a better alternative to complete deletion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Gbawden, whats your point? It seems you are suffering from obsessive Deleting disorder! I am creating a page and you are adding in AFD, one by one! Look at the list of tallest buildings in some western cities like List of tallest buildings in Cardiff, then compare how your views justify discriminating cities from other parts of the world. Dont forget Indonesia is the 7th largest ecnomy of the world. Both Bandung and Medan is large metropolis with huge numbers of colonial buildings and high economic activity. They deserve to be included in the list. The list of tallest buildings are not about heritage, its about height! That's why it has the word tallest!

Bandung is the 2nd most populous city in Indonesia. It has many high rise building already. The city is going through transforming its skyline for last few years. Most of the high rise were built after 2014, as there was height restriction in the city. It needs time and patience to create a new page.There is a page in Bahasa Indonesian 'https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daftar_gedung_tertinggi_di_Bandung'. But in my opinion, the topic needs a page in English. Thnx.

Judging importance of Bandung as an expanding metropolis where high rise buildings are flourishing rapidly, this page should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M R Karim Reza (talk • contribs) 21:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

.Keep, as there are plenty of reference and Bandung is an important cultural, educational & economic hub in Southeast Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.124.167.150 (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- IP's 114.124.167.150 and 114.124.151.1 have made very little contributions to Wikipedia outside of this AfD. Suspect these are IP hopping by the article creator and both comments should be discarded. Ajf773 (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow a full seven days for the second article added later and new comments on it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AFD is about "List of tallest buildings in Bandung" and there is no "second article". Upon close examination, I do see a later comment within the discussion suggesting another article for deletion. It is not hidden but also it clearly seems not part of this AFD, by my reading of the nomination and looking at the AFD as a whole. There's no amendment of the AFD statement at the top. No one noticed it and no one has commented. Okay, here is my comment: ignore that, please, and let this AFD be about just what it appears to be about. --doncram 14:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The second article AfD needs to be withdrawn by the nominator if we go down that path. I see that the AfD template has been removed from the articles author, I've replaced for now. Ajf773 (talk) 01:55, 16 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) 02:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a constructive article, the article has plenty of references, no need to delete Anoptimistix (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If we keep this article, we will soon see "Tallest buildings in ABC", "Tallest buildings in XYZ", and it wouldnt be long to see "Tallest buildings in Dunkineely". The major/important buildings can be added in the article of the city. No need for merge/redirect. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
usernamekiran, what do you mean by ABC or XYZ? Do you have any idea about Bandung? Pls try to enrich yourself about world then suggest!

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otilia Brumă

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

A previous article about this woman, with an unaccented version of her name Otilia Bruma was deleted multiple times, salted, and its creator blocked as a banned user. This version has different text and I've no reason to suspect its main editor, but there are still questions about notability, so I'm bringing it here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete for the moment. I'm restricted to English-language sources, and a Google search suggests that she's certainly popular and famous, but neither of those necessarily equal notability. Sources in Romanian or another nearby language may change my opinion - or even those in Urdu, weirdly, as she seems to be popular in Pakistan for some reason - but I'll have to rely on translations for those. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - YouTube fandom is not enough to demonstrate a singer's notability. Right now, sources are inadequate, to say the least: a press release in a local paper, a tabloid piece about the subject's Turkish ex-boyfriend and another tabloid article about how she was sick in bed for a few days. With this level of coverage, WP:MUSICBIO simply is not met. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:06, 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 Speedy deleted under G4 RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

R. Palan

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

promotional article with total lack of RSs. There is no reason to think either his government appointment or his business enterprise notable. Judging by worldcat, his books are essentially self published. [62] DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the above, simply promotional with no obvious notability. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems to be the same as Dr palan, which was speedy deleted some years ago. Also see User:Drpalan. --– jfsamper ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 06:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (CSD G4): Also deleted at AfD just over a week ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palaniappan Ramanathan Chettiar. No reason to overturn that consensus. AllyD (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 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. Wizardman 22:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Warmoth

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

This sourcing is just not enough to sneak by, even with the draft approaching. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is a non-notable college baseball player. I would not oppose recreating the article if he becomes a major leaguer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge As a 1st-round pick, he seems to have been getting more coverage recently. At the very least, instead of being deleted, this biography could be moved into Wikipedia's list of players in the Toronto Blue Jays organization. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 02:28, June 13, 2017 (UTC)
- Not if he doesn't sign. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have added additional sourcing and "fleshed-out" the page a little. At least keep the page temporarily until he either signs with Toronto or passes. If he signs the page could be merged to the minor leaguers page as Canuckian suggested. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 17:12, 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 07:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Given the expansion and further developments since I nominated this, I withdraw. It was still created WP:TOOSOON. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:16, 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 speedy deletion (G11). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TTR Data Recovery

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

Am having trouble finding secondary sources to support notability. There are five provided sources, two of which are primary (though one does contain two signed letters from NASA employees), one of which Google Chrome insists is a bad site and won't let me access, and the other two are just sites that confirm the businesses exist. No news coverage whatsoever. Blue Edits (talk) 03:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORG. comment by ⚞Lil Johnny⚟ (t·c) on 04:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a firm, sourced to routine listings and a case study on their own site. Notability is not inherited from doing a piece of work for NASA, and nothing in the article suggests more than a run-of-the-mill company going about its business and I am finding nothing better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A7 might have been the best course here. DGG ( talk ) 08:37, 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. I had considered another relisting but with a reasonable level of participation and opinions all over the place on this, I see little hope for a sudden burst of agreement. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Redemption

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

Does not meet general notability guidelines nor film-specific notability guidelines. Google News hits indicated by previous objectors to deletion are passing mentions, and do not discuss the film in depth. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: completing IP request per WT:AfD message, rationale copied from article talkpage. GermanJoe (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Considering. this mentions it, and any number of obituaries of the one actor from Star Wars who appeared in the film give a brief mention it, but I've seen nothing indicating any deep commentary. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, I did a custom search of the google news archives of dates prior to his passing and found two articles which mention The Dark Redemption briefly. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 06:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly, then, the coverage this film has enjoyed has predominently been due to the notability of one of its actors (possibly two, if I undersatnd it?); even so, this clearly lacks the WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE of coverage that demonstrates notability, or the stand-alone reliable sources. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm finding that this is repeatedly mentioned in academic books as an example of SW fan films, so I think that at the very least it should be mentioned somewhere if it can't have its own article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there somewhere it could be mentioned? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as academic book sources support a small stub Atlantic306 (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Barely.

Juddery, Mark (1 May 1999), "Labour Of Love For "Star Wars"", Canberra Times

Solid in depth article about the film.

Casamento, Jo; Ewen, Amy (14 July 1999), "Labour Of Love For "Star Wars"", Daily Telegraph

article on films issues with Lucasfilms

In addition there is more weak sources such as

"Mel's brother stars", Sunday Herald Sun, 25 April 1999

Mel Gibsons brother is making his acting debut.

Just enough to sqeeze into GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which databases are you using to find these citations? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 08:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Granted I am a little bias since I don't think any fan made video, film or self published book should have a Wikipedia page in the first place, but the fact is, it only has three references. And one of those is from an obscure book of essays (citation #2). It's just not notable enoughGiantdevilfish (talk) 17:15, 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 delete. So Why 07:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine Gruchet

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (Daily Mail is not a RS). duffbeerforme (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even if we did consider the Daily Mail a reliable source, the article is arguably not even really about her, although she is cited as an example. This doesn't mean that she's not doing great work on the body image problem, but there's not enough sources as far as I can see to write a good quality, neutral biography of her. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
delete as above, the daily mail story is essentially about her as an everyday person. The other sources are primary, and one is a dead link. LibStar (talk) 14:18, 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 Bertelsmann Music Group#Production music. So Why 07:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

X-Ray Dog

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG. I was unable to locate significant coverage of the subject outside of the sources already provided. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bertelsmann_Music_Group#Production_music There aren't enough sources for an independent article, although there's a bit of coverage of its purchase by BMG[63]; this purchase means it's unlikely to become more notable in the future. I added a section to Bertelsmann Music Group on the company's production music interests. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect name only to Bertelsmann_Music_Group#Production_music. Not independently notable & no need to preserve the history which is strictly promotional. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:56, 9 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. No substantial progress since the last relist but I'm comfortable with interpreting two delete arguments, a good nomination, and no counter-arguments as a consensus to delete. A Train^talk 15:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kaori Yamagata

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

Non-notable voice actress. JA Wikipedia shows a credits dump. ANN has no notable articles to cover her career, just cast announcements. No major roles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It appears she was Anna in a Tekken OVA. Is that considered a major role? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anna is a major character in the franchise, but she's supporting in Tekken: The Motion Picture. But go ahead and count that one as a major role. Any others? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Major role" I suppose refers to WP:NACTOR, #1, but I do not agree that our policy's idea of "role" easily translates to a voice artist. Without reliable sourcing, the GNG is not met: delete. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - voice actresses are run of the mill. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 17:08, 20 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) 02:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - she has dubbed a large number of English-language movies, and actors who commonly do this are among the most recognized actors in their countries of origin. See here. - Richard Cavell (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where are those articles that show she's most recognized? And not just cast listings/announcements, but ones that hail her as significant for dubbing those roles? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:40, 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. postdlf (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Knight's Cross recipients 9th SS Panzer Division Hohenstaufen

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

An unnecessary cross-categorisation created when the awarding of the Knight's Cross was accepted on Wiki as a presumption of notability. Since then, the community consensus has evolved and the awarding of the Knight's Cross no longer carries such a presumption; please see the close at Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners. Lists of similar scope have been recently deleted at AfD, such as:

In addition, I'm nominating similar articles created in the same timeframe. The rationale above is equally applicable to these lists:

List of Knight's Cross recipients 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Knight's Cross recipients SS Division Norland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Knight's Cross recipients 15th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Latvian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Knight's Cross recipients 19th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (2nd Latvian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Knight's Cross recipients 8th SS Cavalry Division Florian Geyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the reason for deletion is that this is an unnecessary duplication of material on List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients, for those not willing to work through several lengthy discussions? --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Colapeninsula: I nominated the lists because I consider them to be an unneeded cross categorisation; compare with Category:Lists of Medal of Honor recipients -- it include lists by conflict & by ethnicity, for example, but there are no List of Medal of Honor Recipients of X Division during World War II & similar list articles. Breaking down the recipients by such minute categories seems excessive. In addition, the Knight's Cross no longer serves to establish presumed notability under WP:SOLDIER by the Wiki community (unlike in 2008), so these lists are on non-notable subjects themselves. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:18, 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 06:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. We just don't have lists of honors by unit. List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A), etc. are more than sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These lists all fail basic notability requirements like WP:LISTN. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, it's common sense as per other AfD outcomes for likewise articles. Ajf773 (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed delete of foreign unit awards lists, such award alone has been cited in deportation proceedings as evidence of war crimes, for example, by members of the 15th and 19th Waffen-SS, Latvian 1st and 2nd. I would support consolidation of the two lists I just cited into one indicating division. The single master list is impossible to muddle through. If that list were upgraded to be useful, we can revisit. It's not about notability, that the master list exists demonstrates agreement on notability. The issue is usability. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I don't see the above as a valid reason for keeping the list on the Latvian recipients. I've searched for [Latvian recipients of the Knight's Cross] & I'm not seeing sources that discuss the topic, mostly non RS militaria literature: link, veering to revisionism such as Siegrunen by Richard Landwehr, a publication that is popular with the neo-Nazi crowd. Likewise, [Latvian recipients of Nazi awards] brings up sources that mention the detail in passing, such as MI6: Inside the Covert World of Her Majesty's Secret Intelligence Service. There's plenty of discussion of [Latvian Waffen-SS members] or similar, but not the award recipients as a group, thus failing WP:LISTN. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the alphabetical listings are more than enough. I don't see any reason to have additional lists splitting them up like this. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:56, 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 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 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 [64], [65], and [66] - 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. 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 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" [67]. 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 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 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 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

AfDs for this article:

(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 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. [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76],[77], [78], [79], etc. In fact, Hindi language newspapers had started publishing articles on the event before it was even started, e.g. [80], [81], [82], 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 – [83], [84], [85], [86], & [87] – 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 [88], Hindustan (newspaper) [89], 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 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 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 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 [90] and [91]. 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. 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: [92]). 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 delete. So Why 06:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Witkoppen Reserve

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

Not sure what's going on here, but I can't find any reliable sources which confirm the existence of a "Witkoppen Reserve". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not locate any either. Apparently whoever posted this article got confused by the fact there is a reserve near Witkoppen, but not in it.TH1980 (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no, there simply isn't one anywhere round there or with that name. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reluctantly, it does seem to exist and I can find mentions of it, but nothing substantial or independent, e.g. http://www.siteform.co.za/Projects/Witkoppen-Reserve-Verkykerskop/, other than that its promotional material or trip adviser reviews of accommodation. Needs to feature in travel press, wildlife site guides etc. Quetzal1964 (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Quetzal1964, Although the lodge says it is in the Witkoppen Reserve, I found some sources such as [93] that confirm the "Witkoppen Tor", a large granite formation (and pictured in at the Lodge's website) is in a "reserve", but called "Fourways Reserve" or "Fourways Gardens". But I'm not yet sure there are enough sources to support an article at "Fourways Reserve". MB 21:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn in Montreal that refers to a different place with the same toponym, I think it means "White Hill" in Afrikaans. The one in this article is in Orange Free State whereas the one you found reference to is in Gauteng. Quetzal1964 (talk) 18:21, 9 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.

[1] ttp://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40236305

[2] ttps://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3774338/isis-fanatic-40-behind-notre-dame-hammer-attack-secretly-radicalised-himself-online-and-was-totally-unknown-to-cops-so-is-it-impossible-to-stop-lone-wolves/

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ D (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Id fresh foods}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air India's fleet}}