Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 26: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:34, 26 September 2017

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 September	27 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Americans in the United Kingdom Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Canadians

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 European Games. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 04:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2023 European Games

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

Way too early for this, per WP:SNOWBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 12:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has the host been confirmed by a reliable source? I noticed that's unsourced in the article. If it's confirmed, that's enough for me, as major sporting events where the host has already been chosen are generally notable. If it's not true, however, the article should be speedied as a hoax. Smartyllama (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to European Games. All I could find is the same BBC source (already in the article) that talks about Manchester considering bidding on it. Since the last hosts were chosen in May 2015, it's unlikely the next hosts will be chosen before 2019. Still, a suitable candidate for a redirect. Regards So Why 11:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per SoWhy unless anyone can find proof the host has been confirmed. Smartyllama (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mindset (band)

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. The sources are 1 article that doesn't mention the subject 3 passing mentions, 1 review in a discontinued blog, 1 interview about them being vegetarians on PETA advocacy site and an article about them splitting up. Domdeparis (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  13:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WVWA

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

This radio station never went on the air; its construction permit expired unbuilt in 2012. It thus does not enjoy the presumption of notability assumed for established/operating stations that have the requisite sources to verify operation. (The FCC only lists two applications involving the station — the one that resulted in the original CP, and a dismissed application for a sale of the CP.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Station only ever existed on paper as a license, and never actually established a broadcast history by ever actually going on air — so it doesn't pass WP:NMEDIA's conditions for the notability of radio stations (where one of the central requirements is "actually launched"). Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: On paper only = delete. Perhaps we should pay homage to NINE! instead? :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:02 on October 1, 2017 (UTC)
Delete This is not notable at all. Just minor references. --Axiomus (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merely being referenced doesn't demonstrate that the subject is notable. Hut 8.5 21:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitrios Baltzis

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

Not seeing sufficient independent coverage. Nearly all the sources are written by the subject in question (his CV, research gate, papers by him). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, thats not quite true. All sources from both hospitals, that newspapers article, it would not be published at all if its not true and written by someone else. Also, we have 12 sources in article now, so, if needed, i can add more. Subject is more then relevant. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 09:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wondering your relation to the subject in question? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None at all. I saw nice article in creation and added content and references. Its stupid to analyze in detail obscure subjects and delete quite normal, standard articles per a bit fake notability questions, while some other MASSIVE problems are not solved or answered at all, in far more notable and bigger articles. Also, just to point out, check other articles from Category:Diabetologists. At least half are in far worse condition then this one, witch now have 12 valid references for 12 sentences. People, i dont understand you really. Anyway, i really could not care less, i got entangled in this subject without any wish or intention, i am sure that this article have far more valid references then needed to prove notability then half of Wikipedia, so i really dont want to prove again and again something that's completely normal to me. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 22:21, 26 September 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 September 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 10:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 10:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 10:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--As the one who initiated the discussion at the talk and asked the nom to take a look, echo nom.And I am smelling some PAID/COI over here.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 13:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I involved myself with this over copyright violation content, for which I was taken to the edit warring noticeboard. After the text--from the subject's personal website--was approved for use, I maintained similar reservations as those cited in this nomination. My take is that there's COI here, as there always is when resume-like bios are posted to Wikipedia. The only saving grace would be if the published research was considered important enough to have been copiously cited by others, but it doesn't help that most of the articles list multiple authors, which tends to dilute the individual's prominence. In all this I cede to Doc James, who knows this particular academic landscape better than do I. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the articles and papers have not been well cited by others [1]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its not?? With pages and pages of content? Doctors are not movie stars, this is more then enough to point notability. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 22:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete heads of clinics are generally not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doctor of international career, everything is properly sourced.Svetisrdj (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From where you were canvassed ; s.t. you returned to cast a !vote after about an year!Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 12:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From my point of view the subject is more then relevant, especially because there are 12 sources and there are dozens more that are available on internet. --Bandzimir (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)This user is the creator of the article, subject to this XFD.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 12:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing exeptional on him. No independent secondary coverage to support his notability. Scholarships, fellowships mentioned is commonplace for hundreds of thousands of scientists. ——Chalk19 (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Chalk19 and .Now every head of a Diabetes Clinic in a hospital is not notable.It is not clear how the subject the notable.Lacks WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep referenced and relevant, i dont think this one is for scrap. But it should be expanded anyway. --Axiomus (talk) 12:49, 3 October 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)}}} 05:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Definitely not notable. As stated above, nothing exceptional about him. -- Dane ^talk 19:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Dane. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article about person who does not meet WP:GNG. A bunch of sources in the article, but none are WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per consensus. I call shenanigans on the keep votes and counsel discounting them. Ifnord (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism and Harvard University Health Services are certainly reliable sources. That being said, the promotional reading of the article should be rewritten to be encyclopedic and neutral. PFAStudent (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primary sources do not prove notability. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amer Kamfar

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

His only claim to fame is that he was briefly reported to be one of the 9/11 terrorists. A case of journalist mistake, in either case the limited coverage of him was both in passing and also WP:ONEEVENT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this isn't even WP:ONEEVENT, it's WP:NONEVENT. I was going to try and form a rationale for a redirect, but featured article American Airlines Flight 11 does not even mention this guy's name once. Let's let him be. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  09:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 10:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 10:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kamfar was not even present when the event occured, he is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In my opinion terrorists should not have articles unless they are leaders. - ZLEA ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 23:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete WP:CSD#G7 by Ponyo per request of article creator Elisa.rolle with the comment "accept reason and move focus to the house". The house is Hodgkins and Skubic House. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Hodgkins and Vera Skubic

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

Not clear why these two women are supposed to be notable. The sources arenot independent (university sources) or not reliable (localwiki.org?), and I couldn't easily find better sources either. Reading the article also doesn't make me any wiser: the houses make the architect notable, not the owners; their university career and publications were not really reamrkable either. They had some impact on their university, but as long as that impact is not recognised and significantly reported in reliable, independent sources, we shouldn't have an article on them. Fram (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. They may be notable individually or not, but their bios should not be combined. If this is kept, it should be split. As for notability, I don't have time to look for more sources but [2]: "Jean Hodgkins and Vera Skubic both played major roles in the development of women’s athletics and ability to participate in recreational activities on American campuses during the 1970s. Prior to their arrival, the words “female” and “athlete” were not mentioned in the same sentence." this suggests they are likely notable. Ping me if better sources are found.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 10:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second this comment that this should be split if kept. Though they did maintain ties, a joint article is a bit much... Note that both possibly have grounds for notability under WP:PROF - their work is cited. e.g. - [3] [4] [5] [6].Icewhiz (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 10:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 10:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

? May be notable separately. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 06:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sariola (band)

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

Not notable per WP:NMUSIC Most of the sources are non notable, while others are dead or deactivated. I also strongly suspect the band wrote this themselves. Possible WP:COI here. The Undead Never Die (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note I would also like to point out that this band has no official affiliation with any of their listed associated artists. The Undead Never Die (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find any good sources covering the band or their work, other than user-generated content and blogs. Do not satisfy WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. No longer a penguin (talk) 09:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. XFhumu^Talk 17:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMUSIC: No notable band members and is not affiliated with a major record label.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Mena

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

Non-notable musician who fails WP:GNG. With my knowledge of mainstream Nigerian music, I haven't seen or heard this name. Nominated awards are non-notable as well. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked at the references. Many of them are pages promoting his work or providing his work for download. The "awards" are mostly just nominations, and they don't seem to be notable awards either. (One of them, for example, is an award which is described on its web site as being the "sophomore edition" of an award "to recognize and reward worthy students and youths on the social scene", and Glenn Mena is one of 686 nominees.) One award which he actually won, rather than just being nominated, from reading pages such as the "about us" page on the web site of the award, is clearly a promotional award. An interview with him turns out to be on a site providing his work for download: effectively an advertisement presented as an interview. In short, no significant independent coverage at all. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JamesBWatson, not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Oluwa2chainz: i think its best if you nominate or contribute to AfD without saying something like 'with my knowledge of mainstream music in Nigeria i've never heard of this artist' you can't know every artist in Nigeria. Its not possible and just because you haven't seen his name doesn't make him non-notable. Nigeria has a population of over 200 million people with different taste in music. I know this artist Glenn Mena very well. Just saying let's focus on why we're nominating rather than add personal sentiments. MustaphaNG (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MustaphaNG, There is nothing personal about my nomination and yes I can't know every artist in Nigeria because this is a country where everybody wants to go into music.—Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of the subject doesn't show the subject being discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete fails primary guidelines and policies, example : WP:GNG to own a stand alone article on Wikipedia. People fail to realize Wikipedia is not a platform used to promote yourself, friend or relation in any way. Celestina007 (talk) 02:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 14:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Austria women's national under-19 floorball team

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

No evidence could be found that this is a notable youth team, getting attention beyond routine couverage. Fram (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely to see how one of thew worlds highest ranking international youth floorball teams is non-notable and routine... Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 20:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "One of the workds highest ranking" or one of the only one in the world? It is ranked 15 out of 19, big deal (or it was in May 2016, the ranking hasn't even been updated since). Does it have any notability or is this just WP:ILIKEIT? Fram (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 08:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Merely routine coverage, no indicia of notability. Montanabw^(talk) 02:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - can't think of any way of improving this article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Park Sangdon

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

This article does not have any reliable source, and can't find any reliable sources. Thanks. Garam (talk) 20:17, 10 September 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 September 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 02:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 08:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet musician notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kaushik Mitra

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

This article has tone issues and notability issues. What is an ideator, anyway? Labeling someone as one, and as one of the "hottest creatives" is marketing gibberish. The two sentences could be taken out as marketing gibberish, but then a Google search would not provide anything worth adding to keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of verifiable references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashi 1980 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Shashi 1980 (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sock. ansh 666 08:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 08:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references in the article aren't independent and reliable. I can't find anything better (though searching isn't made easy by there being several academics and an actor with the same name!). Seems to be a run of the mill businessman. Neiltonks (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks relevant, but sources are problematic... Maybe it can be redone with proper format and layout. --Axiomus (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black Women in Europe Blog

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

This article was previously proposed for deletion, deleted, and then restored on the request of an IP editor. Unfortunately, the notability concerns remain. Most of the coverage of the blog in independent sources consists of brief mentions rather than anything of significant depth. The awards that the blog has won do not appear to be particularly significant ones. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 08:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a list of awards, none are bluelinked, and most appear to be given to blogs by groups of bloggers; I can't see that these give much support to notability; they may not even be independent of subject. Worse, is the utter lack of evidence of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. a gNews search comes up blank: [7]. Sources on page include two books, one Don't Bring Home a White Boy: And Other Notions that Keep Black is written by one of the bloggers who write this blog "“I started the Black Women in Europe (BWIE) blog after moving to Sweden because I wanted to connect with other black women in Europe." , the other book is a mere inclusion on a list "The women envisiaged utilising various social websites and blogs such as Facebook, BEWC, Black Women in Europe Blog, Afro European ...". In sum, this is mere PROMO by a fan or a blogger. Mere PROMO overstuffed with worthless sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Wow. Former PROD in a different appearance of the article, then deleted. I don't imagine a clarification would be needed at WP:NOQUORUM, but is a first for me at least. Note to closing editor: In the discussion's current state, I would think that an full delete would be the best closure if this discussion attracts no more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your comment, J947. What is it that's unusual here? Cordless Larry (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: Former PRODs mean the article cannot be deleted under soft deletion, but this former PROD was a PROD that was in a former version of the article, and then the article got deleted due to that PROD, and then the article was restored to its same version, so I am assuming that the article is ineligible for soft deletion. That's what makes it unusual. J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 20:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable blog fails WP:GNG--Shrike (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Insufficient discussion. Try renominating a few months later. Sandstein 08:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Niccolo Milanese

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

Does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. The article cites a lot of articles written by Milanese, but I can't find any independent sources about him. – Joe (talk) 10:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 08:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that there are several articles about Milanese at the end of the entry - from newspapers in different countries - and the organisation he has founded is well known and importante. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidberber11 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Davidberber11: Could you clarify which? I looked through when I nominated the article and they seemed to be all a) primarily about European Alternatives, with Milanese only mentioned in passing; and/or b) not independent of Milanese. See WP:42 for a brief statement of Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion. – Joe (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 18:34, 3 October 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)}}} 23:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These two, for example: https://komentare.sme.sk/c/20393296/britsky-aktivista-unia-vas-mala-lepsie-privitat.html http://www.tovima.gr/world/article/?aid=435776 Davidberber11 (talk) 07:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Hacker

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

not notable under WP:PROF -- no widely cited papers. His books are of limited interest only. DGG ( talk ) 07:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete demetologist with no sign of notability, this is one of the more overly promotional medical fields, second only to plastic surgery.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per |John Pack Lambert and fails WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mere PROMO; no notability found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quetzal: match three, let the prizes come to me

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

Non notable game Arthistorian1977 (talk) 05:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources when searching the WP:VG/S custom search engine. This is a plain delete. --Izno (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, fails WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't agree with the abovementioned game notability criteria as WP:VG/S doesn't include any gambling-related sources, even mastodonts such as the Gambling Insider Magazine, EGaming Review or Total Gambler. The article categorisation might need to be revised, but for me it's a keep. Dimotika (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimotika: Please provide some sources to evidence that the article topic meets the WP:GNG. You're right that WP:VG/S doesn't carry gambling sources, but that should not prevent you from doing the research to identify sources for this topic. --Izno (talk) 12:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that as I couldn't provide a realiable source to proof of notability, besides some marginal game review sites. Reading the comments of the pro-delete voters, I no longer believe this article could be saved. On a separate note, I was planning to write articles about "Starburst" slot produced by [NetEnt] and "Rainbow Riches" slot produced by Scientific Games which are well known gambling titles, and have generated £millions in the last 5 years, however they are not even mentioned in the few sites that I checked from this list: WP:VG/S! Would these also risk to be marked for deletion because of WP:GNG?Dimotika (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they'd likely be deleted then too. With creating virtually any article of any subject, if you don't have multiple third party, reliable sources that cover the subject in good detail, its likely to be deleted. The WP:GNG requires multiple sources, so in the most technical sense, you could get away with 2 sources...but historically, it usually takes more like 4-5 required to be enough to actually create any sort of decent article and persuade people in these deletion discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But if we're saying that the reliable sources for gaming are listed in WP:VG/S, while at the same time these don't cover any gambling products, does it mean that we'd have to revise WP:VG/S, or to consider gambling and gaming as two separate topics? Dimotika (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VG/S is a bit of a special case on Wikipedia. Its a (rather massive) collection of sources that are agreed upon to be usable or not usable on Wikipedia though a ton of various discussions from experienced editors. It's not a hard rule or policy, just a list used for guidance. If a game received coverage from those acceptable sources, you're more likely to be able to prove that a game should have its own article. But source lists like this are rather rare. There's a music variant at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES, but most subject areas don't have a big master list like this. You could always talk to WikiProject Gambling and see if there was interest in starting up such a list, but they don't seem like a very active group. For what its worth, probably any gambling-related things that are video games or mobile phone apps are probably going to be fine for using VG/S due to the massive list of sources. But for any actual gambling stuff (casinos, horse racing, fantasy football, etc) VG/S would probably not be helpful. Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to explain this in details. I believe the best would be for me to join the WikiProject Gambling and alingn on the standards and criteria for gambling articles. Thanks everyone for your energy to review and explain the weaknesses for this articleDimotika (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no third party sources to meet the WP:GNG. I also don't buy into Dimotika's (the article creator's) argument above that gambling related sources may have covered it. As the article currently states, the game doesn't allow for real-money gambling due to it being a game on Apple's App Store, which doesn't allow for gambling. Additionally, it clearly identifies as a tile-matching video game. There's no reason to believe that video game sources would ignore this, while gambling websites would pick up on it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sergecross73, fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Sanchez-Kane

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

Really should be a speedy A7, but speedy was declined as "(decline A7, has sources - she's slagged off Trump, what more do you want?)" , I think that amounts to a rather routine "accomplishment." DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, search her on google news, there are plenty of sources discussing her fashion work - [8] [9] [10] [11]. The article just needs to be expanded. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  08:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the references that filelakeshoe found, she's been profiled in Mexican Vogue, Vanity Fair Mexico, Latin Times, NBC News and more. I've added the sources to the article. She has critical response and reviews since 2015. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG as a news search brings up many hits. (I declined the A7) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So many sources!! This is KEEP. --Axiomus (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:HEYMANN by [[User:Megalibrarygirl makes notability crystal clear as per WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Close - redundant AfD. No Afd tag was on the article.. There is already an ongoing AfD begun on September 11 2017 [12] but no tag was on the article. Or maybe it was removed. This AfD is redundant and must be closed, and the page should probably be deleted. (non-admin closure) Steve Quinn (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10 Cents (band)

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

No indication of notability by reliable sources. The references consist of sources that are not acceptable RS. One source notes an audience of 50 people during for a performance [13] - which exemplifies the lack of sustainable impact this band has had - it performed in the late 1990s. No indication that it produced anything that made the charts. Fails WP:NMUSIC, WP:BAND and fails GNG. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 14:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Association for the assessment of learning in higher education

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

I can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources which shows this organization's notability. Lots of listings, nothing in-depth. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark (talk) 05:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IWA East Coast

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

Previously deleted article that still doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Nikki♥311 22:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 22:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 22:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 22:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No improvements since last time, fails WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ericka (album)

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

Unreleased studio album. So this means it never charted. No coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails criteria for WP:NALBUMS and fails GNG. This artist produced a song which charted at 49 or 50 entitled "So Good" (see WP:Articles for deletion/"So Good"). But this has nothing to do with an unreleased album with no coverage in reliable sources. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to article on Ericka Yancey. The album is currently unreleased, so it is difficult to see what is notable about it. Vorbee (talk) 10:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as I said on the "So Good" AfD, it's not at all certain that Ericka Yancey herself is notable, so I'm not sure whether a merge and redirect is the answer if the artist's article is also likely to be deleted. Richard3120 (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft; not independently notable and no sources to meet WP:SIGCOV. An an "unreleased debut studio album", this is extremely unlikely to be notable, while the article lists no 3rd party sources, so there's nothing to merge. The artist herself is unlikely to be notable either, so no point in redirecting. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If Ericka Yancey is unlikely to be notable, shouldn't her entry be nominated for deletion?Vorbee (talk) 08:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An unreleased album; we aren't talking about The Beach Boys' botched "symphony to God" here, the recording artist is a barely notable R&B musician. There is no indication whatsoever of passing WP:GNG and I am not entirely sure we can use WP:NALBUM as a measuring stick since, officially, there is no album.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... For an unreleased album, it sure got good reviews, see Vibe and Detroit Free Press and some of its songs charted in Billboard R&B [14] [15]. Not sure whether it's enough to establish notability but the claim "no coverage in reliable sources" can easily be disproven via WP:BEFORE. Regards So Why 14:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per TheGracefulSlick. Whether songs that would have been on the album appeared on charts is irrelevant. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG - apparently promotional copies were sent out for reviewers and after the singles failed to chart, it was shelved. There are apparently a few copies floating around [[16]], but there's not enough to substantiate this article. Furthermore, with no output that attained any notability in nearly 20 subsequent years, I'm going to suggest that the Ericka Yancey article is a candidate for deletion. WP:TOOSOON doesn't apply. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. duplicate AfD. closing. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinesh Sudarshan Soi DGG ( talk ) 07:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Sudarshan Soi

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

No significant evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG: a duplicate AfD that should be closed? AllyD (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Sudarshan Soi

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

Promotional article on apparently non-notable casting director. Attempts to remove the excessive over-personal content have failed. The references are notice of the customary PR for the film industry. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a one-time model and actor now working as a casting director, with the text betraying signs of autobiography (residual I voice). Most references are mundane/unreliable, indicating a man with a job. The brief IANS-syndicated item in Business Standard is probably the best available but falls short of demonstrable notability. AllyD (talk) 06:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete casting directors are almost never notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leighton Baker

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

BLP of failed perennial micro-party candidate for office from a party with zero national or local representation. Doesn't come close to passing WP:NPOL. He fails to achieve "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". AusLondonder (talk) 03:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Auslander, I, personally, find it very confusing that the The Dominion Post (Wellington), the broadsheet daily in the capital of New Zealand and one of the archipelago's leading papers, has a website misleadingly called "stuff" - and so cited in this article's references. I suspect that this misled you into asserting that Baker lacks RS, independent coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 03:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Head of minor national party in New Zealand and significant player in New Zealand politics despite the fact that his family values party attracts less that 5% of kiwis, according to a INDEPTH profile of him that ran last month in the Dominion Post here:[17]. Granted, the article needs improvement, but it can be improved with coverage in arecles such as What happened to the Conservative Party? in last week's New Zealand Herald.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source: Life after Colin: Does the Conservative Party have a chance in 2017? [18] 19 August 2017.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's enough there to meet GNG. Schwede 66 18:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets GNG NealeFamily (talk) 03:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fails WP:NPOL but passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re sources This article has twelve sources. The first three sources are from the Electoral Commission and are candidate listings and results. The fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh sources are coverage of the internal affairs and leadership of the Conservative Party - not Baker. The eight source is a press release from the Conservative Party. Source nine, ten and eleven are again either routine coverage of the internal affairs and leadership of the Conservative Party or election coverage. The last source is routine election coverage of Baker in his role as a local candidate for office. These sources come absolutely nowhere near meeting the requirements of WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, several of the article do have significant discussions of Baker, beware WP:NOTROUTINE: "Be careful not to make WP:ROUTINE mean something that it does not. Just because a news article is written about a pre-planned event does not make it 'routine' coverage." Essay gives this example: "Once every four years, the United States holds an election for President. These elections are "routinely" covered by every news outlet and the event is a "pre-planned event" as a part of the United States Constitution. However, that does not mean that this coverage would be excluded from notability discussions because of the WP:ROUTINE guideline."E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a consensus to keep the content. Renaming the page or merging it can be done outside of AFD. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iana Kasian

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

Appears to fail WP:CRIME. reddogsix (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, on the basis of this story being major news. -Mardus /talk 03:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS applies and your argument does not apply. reddogsix (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is notable, because Kasian's death is a rare and very gruesome murder. -Mardus /talk 03:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that is so, please point me where in WP:N or other guidelines that it specifies that a "rare and gruesome murder" or other crime is notable. reddogsix (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Notability: The topic has received 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. Neither is this routine news coverage. -Mardus /talk 03:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:1EVENT. reddogsix (talk) 04:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From there:

if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.
If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.
if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example, Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination.

-Mardus /talk 04:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but, although I find sadness in the event, I do not find the murder of a model in the same league as the items you refer to. reddogsix (talk) 04:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The topic here is not the murder, it is the person. She obviously fails WP:BLP1E, but often the article gets moved to Murder of .... In this case there is an article on her, and an article on the accused, but Wikipedia really doesn't need both. Abductive (reasoning) 04:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I made the page because 1) death by torture in North America in 2017 is always significant; 2) any modern-day scalping is significant; 3) that which captures the popular imagination has its place in popular culture. Odd how no one seems to care about the validity of the suspected perp's page... just kill the victim's page? N.B.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_murder > not a very long list, is it?
Could be merge, redirect or move? Abductive (reasoning) 04:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Rename to Murder of Iana Kasian. A BEFORE convinced me - beyond the tabloid coverage, this is widely covered (e.g. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]) - meeting WP:CRIME.Icewhiz (talk) 06:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly adequate coverage. May have to change the title per Icewhiz, though I am not a fan of the "Murder of" titling. But keep one way or the other. Definitely Montanabw^(talk) 07:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the article as written is WP:BIO1E; the subject was not notable before she died. I would oppose a move to "Murder of X]], as I don't see lasting significance or societal impact. The content is tabloid-like in nature. The murder is not especially significant or unique; fails WP:NCRIME. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opining that death by scalping in the 21st Century is extremely rare, perhaps entirely unique in NA, so an inherently notable event in modern society, tabloidista aside. I saw only one other case so far this century, and the victim survived. (MA, 2005.) Death by torture in NA is also very rare.AHampton (talk) 03:10, 3 October 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)}}} 23:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per references. Per major news. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  18:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Red Carpet Diary

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

Article about a promotional web series, not referenced to adequate reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG or WP:NMEDIA. Of the four footnotes here, two are deadlinked primary source directories of its own self-published web presence, and one is a deadlinked blog entry -- and the only live source is a press release from a media outlet announcing that it was going to start carrying this, so even that is a directly affiliated source and not an independent third-party source. So this isn't automatically entitled to have a standalone article just because it existed, but the sourcing here isn't getting it anywhere near a GNG pass. To the extent that we need any content about this at all, one or two sentences in Toronto International Film Festival would completely cover off what little we can properly source — and I'm not convinced we even need that much. Bearcat (talk) 03:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 06:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable junket footage/video ad thing. Nate • (chatter) 01:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability or significance; notability is not inherited from the festival that it serves as a "entertainment news feature". K.e.coffman (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass WP:GNG, WP:NFO or the most applicable aspects of WP:NMEDIA. Shearonink (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Kaplan Mulholland

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

Poorly sourced and résumé-like WP:BLP of a person whose stated claims of notability are being a Real Housewife of Toronto and owning a company. Neither of these is confers an automatic inclusion freebie just because she exists, but the sourcing isn't there to support a WP:GNG pass -- this is based on just three sources, of which one is the unreliable kind and one is the primary kind. Which leaves one acceptable source, but that's not enough to clear GNG. Bearcat (talk) 02:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Her plastic surgeon husband may not be notable either, but she clearly is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No RS, orphan, full of OR, no legit claim to notability. Written by SPA whose 2nd edit was creating this article...likely a vanity page. Agricola44 (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yeah, this one clearly fails GNG. And from inclusionist-leaning me, that really should make it a snow delete (lol). Montanabw^(talk) 07:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Kelley Walker

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

Résumé-toned WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a Real Housewife of Toronto and host of a web series, not referenced to enough substantive or widespread media coverage to suggest that she warrants an encyclopedia article for it. Of the nine sources here, five are local coverage in her Toronto-suburban hometown weekly pennysavers, existing only in the context of insignificant local distinctions like the local "Women and Philanthropy" gala and the local "Give Back" awards; one just namechecks her existence in the process of not being about her; one is a primary source directory of her own writing for the Huffington Post; and one is a mere blurb about her in a "meet all the Real Housewives" overview. There's just one source here that's substantively about her -- but even that source is clobbered by the fact that Corus Entertainment owns both Global (which produces ET Canada, the provider of the coverage) and Slice (which airs Real Housewives of Toronto), making it internal corporate cross-promotion rather than genuinely independent coverage. But even if we ignored that fact and let it stand just because it's somewhat more substantive than anything else here, it still takes more than just one substantive source to pass WP:GNG. And then there's the fact that the article deeply overplays the significance of trivial honours like an award from her high school and the Queen Elizabeth Jubilee Medal (which is not an honour that confers an automatic must-include in Wikipedia, as it was presented to 60,000 people in 2012 alone). There's just no claim of notability here that's strong enough to justify an article, if the sourcing to support it is this weak. Bearcat (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reality television people are generally not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: These reality show bios generally fail NACTOR, and this one falls into that group. Montanabw^(talk) 07:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I think we can safely close this. Thanks to all. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Angelica Hamilton

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

Absolutely nothing notable about this woman, other than being the daughter of one of the greatest minds in American history. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing indepedently notable about Angelica Hamilton.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is true that she is discussed only in sources that are principally directed to her notable parents, and it is true that notability is not inherited. Nevertheless, her mental illness and its effects on her more notable family members was at least significant enough to justify keeping and trying to expand this article (as opposed to merging content into the articles about her parents or siblings). Lwarrenwiki (talk) 03:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Lwarrenwiki. Removing this article would mean moving the related information on the pages of her famous parents whose life was affected by her condition, thus creating an unnecessary unbalance. It would furthermore be rather odd to leave only this child of Alexander Hamilton without her page (which has btw been greatly improved since it was first created) when all her siblings have their page. Isananni (talk) 04:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the WP:OSE arguments are weak, the nominator and other delete !voter overlook that notability is not necessarily something that comes from a person's own actions. Their traits or illnesses can equally be a reason to assume notability, just as long as "they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". This is the case here. Why they covered her is not really important. Regards So Why 16:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fascinating history of an individual that clearly meets GNG criteria of significant coverage in multiple sources. Montanabw^(talk) 02:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is well-written, well-sourced passes WP:GNG. Also, Angelica Hamilton is currently appearing on a Broadway stage in the greatest hit show of the century, admittedly, the century is only 17 years old, but the role in the show should be added to the article. Note also that WP:NOTINHERITED states: "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG.", in other words, she doesn't have to have "done" anything. This AfD will come out KEEP just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Lincoln Beckwith did, because WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can we call quit? We have 5 "keep" against 2 "delete", can we remove the delete discussion template from the article and move on? Isananni (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~WP:SNOW, next editor who comes to this page should just close this as keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)~~ Got my Angelicas mixed up (aunt/niece). Nevertheless, I can verify that there is renewed interest in Angelica nièce due to the Hamilton (musical). (added a coupe of sources to the page; mental health angle is interesting.) Still thinking Keep, but I do see Nom's point that this snowball might roll all the way through enfer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Intellivision games. czar 02:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bomb Squad (video game)

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

Searches turned up virtually no in-depth coverage of this video game other than trivial mentions and listings. Could be a redirect but editors insist on an article with virtually no sourcing consisting entirely of a plot summary. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's just one of the several that were already there: https://www.giantbomb.com/bomb-squad/3030-1426/ In what way does that have " virtually no in-depth coverage " or is just a "trivial listing" ? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - you do understand that is a wiki, and therefore not a reliable source? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. You do understand, don't you, that this wasn't what you complained of. You claimed there was "no in-depth coverage", and clearly this is some.

Also I don't appreciate the way you are clearly stalking all of my edits at present and blanking or AfDing anything I touch, shouting "just not notable!" Andy Dingley (talk)

Comment - you do understand that for something to be in-depth it needs to be from a reliable source? btw, not stalking, but your edits create entries on the NPP, which I am trying to help out reducing the backlog. But thanks for the personal attack and agf. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of sources mentioned in context with the Intellivision, and especially the Intellivoice. I'm not entirely sure I agree with the "no in-depth coverage" given the age of the game however since period pieces are hard to come by (which would have reviews of the game). My inclination for now is to redirect either to List of Intellivision games or to Intellivoice. --Izno (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To List of Intellivision games per Izno._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per ZXCVBNM. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - only existence can be verified, not the GNG. (The Giant Bomb wiki source doesn't help notability at all.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sandwich Fault Zone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Illinois earthquake

AfDs for this article:

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

WikiProject Earthquakes is not documenting insignificant events like this one, either as standalone articles or as list entries. Our efforts are instead being focused on creating complete, interesting, and encyclopedic articles that require significant coverage. This one fails WP:EVENT and our own notability guidelines because of the following concerns:

Low intensity – V (Moderate)
No injuries or deaths
Lack of coverage from the scientific community
Not listed on the NGDC's significant earthquake database
Fails multiple aspects of WP:EVENT

No lasting effects
No depth of coverage

There are slightly more notable events in Illinois, and we do have an article, but this is not one of them. This one also does not qualify to be on the list so redirecting is not an option. The USGS entry for the event tells us that it happened and that the highest reported intensity from several thousand people on the ground was V (Moderate) but nothing more. If there were damage, injuries, or deaths, related detail would be listed under the "impact" section:

M 3.8 - 8km NW of Village of Campton Hills, Illinois – United States Geological Survey.

There is really nothing to salvage with this one. Redirecting to any article (even Sandwich Fault Zone) is not necessary. WikiProject Earthquakes has more than 170 stand alone earthquake lists. I don't see a need to be creating embedded lists in other articles. This article is about a non-event and the encyclopedia won't lose anything with it gone.

Dawnseeker2000 01:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would redirect it to Sandwich Fault Zone. It's significant in that it is a rare occurrence in the area, and it was felt by a lot of people. Funandtrvl (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether an occurrence is considered rare, felt (non-destructive) events are not notable and it seems a little desperate to want to write about them. Dawnseeker2000 15:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with selective merge to Sandwich Fault Zone (consensus on 2nd AfD), partly as per WP:PRESERVE - this this minor trembler was quite widely covered at the time. Plus, possibly because it does get pageviews [25], showing that it is a useful search term.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3 options have been presented and all are viable options: Delete, Redirect, and Smerge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 23:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sandwich Fault Zone; not independently notable. Anything useful could be picked up from the article history, if desired. A simple redirect would work just as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I guess that WT:MED is the place to discuss MEDRS issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol enema

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

Very dubious sourcing – none of the allegations are actually confirmed. And none of the medical information has sources which pass WP:MEDRS. Deacon Vorbis (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly not a wise thing to do but since when does GNG require allegations to be confirmed for notability to exist? The topic is notable simply because it generated a lot of coverage, no matter how many people were actually stupid enough to do it. But unfortunately, there are tons of hits from reliable sources (short sample: CNN, HuffPost, Jezebel, Medical Daily, NY Daily News, ABC News, LA Weekly, The Independent etc.), so notability is not a problem. Regards So Why 14:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but make WP:MEDRS-compliant notable per the sources, but stuff like experts believe that... definitely cannot be sourced to a (single!) CNN article. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a shot at cleaning the article, but it might still need further trimming. In particular the "Effects and dangers" section is based off a single expert interview; I left it because I suppose it is on the good side of the MEDRS line, but not by far. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SoWhy. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 01:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Lavoro

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

Per WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP. This person is only notable for being arrested for marijuana possession. A PROD was declined. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being arrested for marijuana possession is far, far, far too common to make someone notable. The particulars here still do not rise to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The notability claim here is being charged with a crime that could've lead to a life in prison jail sentence - on a relatively small amount - based on the amount of estimated finished brownie weight. With enough sourcing - this actually could be notable standalone, but in this case (mainly news coverage in 2014, a single book mention) - I don't see this rising to GNG. Content could be merged/redirected if there is an appropriate target.Icewhiz (talk) 06:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the subject committed a minor crime that does not have the coverage to need an encyclopedia article and a clear case of WP:BLP1E Atlantic306 (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge, plea deal ended the case with a far less draconian sentence. The pot brownie weight is fascinating, but more relevant to an article about cannibis laws in Texas. Definitely a BIO1E. This article content could be merged into Cannabis in Texas. Montanabw^(talk) 05:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. A Train^talk 06:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apoorva Kasaravalli

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

Per WP:GNG. Cannot WP:INHERIT notability from his family members, The Hindu seems to be the only secondary source used to establish notability solely for the subject of the article, and I would consider it's reliability suspect at best. Comatmebro (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG requires 2 notable, independent, 3rd party sources. We have myae one. There might be an argument for creating an artivle on the family that he is part of that mentions him, or short mention in the article on his father, but no argument for an article on him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 01:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. bd2412 T 20:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Acronyms in healthcare

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

Originally prodded. Prod was removed. This is an indiscriminate and poorly organized list of medical industry acronyms that is 100% unsourced and of which most of the parent articles are redlinks. The list provides nothing that the parent articles cannot, and therefore is not useful. There is nothing here to explain why these subjects are notable, no reliable sources to satisfy verifiability or notability, etc. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see why someone would use this to look up an acronym rather than the search function. Neither do I see people browsing this list out of interest. --Pontificalibus (talk) 06:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll do my best to furnish some references to the article. The use of acronyms in healthcare is an independently notable and referenced entity. I'll see if I can find some lists of acronyms to act as references for this list also. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is not really a list of acronyms (initials that spell words) simply a list of abbreviations. Vorbee (talk) 10:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Happy to give Tom some time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources cover "acronyms in healthcare" as a topic that includes this list. Perhaps a medical directory of some sort does. This fails WP:N. Also, in the intro it says "acronyms commonly used in health care" is a judgement or an opinion by the article's author, not based on reliable sources and therefore fails WP:V and the list could be construed as WP:OR. Then of course, Wikipedia is not a repository for indiscriminate information WP:Indiscriminate and it is not a directory WP:NOTDIR. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Steve Quinn we arne't a repository, but I feel this as a topic is notable. IF the list was removed (which I agree is indiscriminate per your above points) would you consider retaining the article as a stub? --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Tom (LT): Yes. Based on your restructuring of this article, I now agree with retaining the article as a stub or even longer. I mean, the variations on how the safety issues come about could extend this article. In any case, I am now changing my ivote from "delete" to "keep". Steve Quinn (talk) 01:06, 7 October 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)}}} 23:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A simple WP:BEFORE style search shows this topic to be highly notable, with whole books devoted to healthcare and medical abbreviations: Mosby's Survival Guide to Medical Abbreviations & Acronyms, Dorland's Dictionary of Medical Acronyms and Abbreviations E-Book, Stedman's Pocket Medical Abbreviations. There are plenty of online resources, to supoort such a list, too, Tabers Medical Dictionary, Stedman's online, HANYS Healthcare Acronyms & Terms, etc. With such sources available, verifying glossary entries is a matter of editing, not wholesale deletion. WP supports glossary style articles (MOS:GLOSSARIES) and this is one of them. If editors wanted to restrict to only abbreviations of notable topics, i.e., get rid of the red links, that would be OK, too, but it would make the glossary less useful. --Mark viking (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The MOS discusses glossaries in general, that is true. But the MOS is not a notability guideline or a Core content policy. Per WP:MOS The Manual of Style...is the style manual for all Wikipedia articles...the Manual of Style presents Wikipedia's house style. The MOS is a style guide like the MLA style manual or APA style guide. I am guessing there are instances where a glossary is used in connection to a notable topic; but there has been no demonstration this is a notable topic. The above books are not indicators of notability for this topic. The content of each above book is routine information for whatever field each book covers.

Those books are reference works and do not show how this topic is remarkable, worthy of note, has garnered commentary in reliable sources and so on per WP:N. Therefore, Wikipedia is not a dictionary - that is the function of the above books There is a sister project for that called Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a directory - that is also the function of the above books. This not an encyclopedic entry. It consists only of routine information. The Wikipedia article is essentially a mirror of any one of the above books. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve Quinn lots of reliable sources comment on the use of acronyms in healthcare [26], most of which are critical of it. It is an independently notable topic. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete -- The choice of which abbreviations (not acronyms) to include constitutes original research. Rhadow (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- @Rhadow WP:OR isn't a reason to delete an article about a notable topic. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, Tom (LT), what I should have said was WP:OR instead of references to secondary sources. Rhadow (talk) 11:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I changed my ivote from "delete" to "keep". The article has been rewritten and restructured by Tom (LT). It is now a prose article rather than a problematic list article. As such, there are sufficient reliable (scholarly) sources that support this topic when viewed from perspective of acronym and abbreviation incongruities, which can result in patient safety issues. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Rhadow (talk) 02:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has been significantly improved and meets all guidelines now. -- Dane ^talk 20:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clown porn

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

List of pop culture references disguised as a stub. KMF (talk) 00:48, 26 September 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 September 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article asserts the existence of something called "clown porn", which it describes as "a variety of pornography in which the performers dress as clowns", and lists pop culture references to "clown porn" but fails to establish that "clown porn" is actually a thing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Girls say they want a guy who is funny and spontaneous but when I tap on the window at night dressed as a clown it's all panic and screaming...... (PS Delete as fails GNG) .... –Fuckles The Clown 20:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a non encyclopedic collection of trivia; fails WP:NOT. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concept not supported by WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Davilex Games

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

Fails WP:NCORP due to a lack of reliable, significant sources. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:NCORP. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm seeing some stuff in a foreign language that may be RS, so am re-listing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 00:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep I don't speak Dutch or French but from what I can tell using GTranslate, these [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] (also one in German) seem like reliable sources covering the subject in detail. Maybe someone speaking Dutch and/or French can confirm? Regards So Why 14:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Gamekings is the most prominent gaming outlet in the Netherlands, see also its wiki page. Not familiar enough with the others. I'd also like to point to the Dutch wikipedia article, which includes articles from Tweakers and the NRC Handelsblad newspaper. GameLegend (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. So Why 14:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Maplestrip and Soetermans, how does the Dutch coverage look? Any suggested additions to the above? czar 07:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had never heard of Apparata.nl and Sprout before, and these websites don't look bad, but I currently don't feel comfortable saying anything one way or another about them. Gamekings is indeed very prominent in the Netherlands, and though I don't like the outlet, it is probably considered a reliable source. The Dutch Wikipedia article is a bit odd, as we have one for the company and one for its games division. The interview on Tweakers I would consider reliable and useful, the NRC Handelsblad article would also be useful if it were still available. Either way, this should be enough sources for a keep. ~Mable (chat) 11:21, 1 October 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)}}} 23:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Czar, sorry for my late reply. I found this article be Gamer.nl, which is another Dutch language video game website. It's not in the WP:VG/RS, but from my experience it is more serious and adult-oriented than the adolescent target audience by Power Unlimited, which is listed. In the Netherlands' Alexa rankings, Power Unlimited ranks 1215, Gamer.nl ranks 1690. With the other sources, I also would vote keep. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gamer.nl is pretty decent. I would personally definitely prefer it over Power Unlimited if I were looking for Dutch gaming news. ~Mable (chat) 12:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell whether that Gamer.nl story is a repackaged press release or just a bad machine translation (if the former, then it won't be much help for independent notability) czar 17:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology and racism

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

Dead ref links Johnalexwood (talk) 23:48, 25 September 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 September 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The specific issue raised by the nominator has been addressed, but I'm not convinced by the reliability of the sources in the article. Looking elsewhere this was the best source that I could find quickly, but there may well be others that can be found if we don't search for the exact phrase:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete misnamed article that does not actually cover the topic at hand. Cherry picking from the personal communications of Hubbard is not the way to establish good coverage of the topic. We need secondary, scholary sources which are lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while I don't think the nom's rationale is a valid reason for deletion, I do agree with JPL that the article does not align with its title. Instead, it merely provides evidence to suggest possible racism on Hubbard's part. If we could verify this information, it might be sensible to merge some of it into Hubbard's article, but this specific article should be removed. Lepricavark (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Americans in the United Kingdom}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Canadians}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 European Games}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mindset (band)}}