Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 September	13 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Parker

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

After some research, I have found no evidence of a Belgian rugby player named Jimmy Parker existing. I have also found no evidence of Belgium playing Tunisia or Combined Services XV from 1993-94. The lack of information about this person and the events described in the article leads me to believe that this article is a hoax. If it can be determined that this article is in fact a hoax it should be deleted. Jith12 (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of credible sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EC Racing (talk • contribs) 18:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the appearances for Belgium, even if proven, would not be sufficient to meet WP:NSPORTS. Hack (talk) 04:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources in the article and the only articles that identify a Jimmy Parker playing rugby for the Belgium national team are all Wikipedia mirrors. This fails verifiability in spectacular fashion. -- Whpq (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources in article or any sources elsewhere to prove this person's existance. Also, even if he did exist, the article fails WP:NRU as Belgium are not an HPU and the Barbarians do not play in a fully professional rugby competition. Jith12 (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Belgium did play Tunisia in May 1994, however there is no team sheet and even if there was it would not be a notable person anyway. [1] Skeene88 (talk) 18:11, 17 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. The argument that this should be discussed in context in Foreign relations of Russia is compelling; Wikipedia does not create WP:POVFORKs. Sandstein 06:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russian aggression

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

PROD removed without improvement. The topic is vague, too vague to be an encyclopedia article. The author argues that American exceptionalism is also vague. It isn't. It has been a concept developed over 150 years and extensively discussed in politics and in academia. The WP article has 107 references. By contrast, Russian aggression is still a a simple use of two words together, like fatherly pride, or fertile fields, neither of which deserve a WP article. Proposal of Russian aggression as an encyclopedic topic is either (a) original research, or (b) a POV problem. By Googling, I can find almost any two words in juxtaposition. That doesn't mean they are ready for an article. Some of the text could be moved to Media portrayal of the Ukrainian crisis. That would be appropriate. Rhadow (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. The claim that this term is a media invention is also textbook POV pushing. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as evidenced by newspaper usage and academic articles Russian aggression is a legitimate topic with literature dedicated to discuss it. As for Rhadow concern that it is just a "two words in juxtaposition" there is thousands of such words already in Wikipedia, and there should be more. The other concern wich is about POV can be fixed because articles are dynamic and I have only added what is available on the topic both from Eastern and Western sources. The article does not take sides it just describes how it is used and what some analyst think on the term. Yes American exceptionalism has plenty of sources because it has been around here for 14 years, this is how it looked when it was created. Plus one should take into account the language barriers there exist to access more content on Russian aggression, contrary to the the case of Am. exceptionalism. Lappspira (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Articles like Foreign relations of Russia and Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin already cover this topic. This is essentially a dictionary definition. While not excusing the Russian Government's clearly aggressive foreign policies in any way, you could probably create an article about claims of just about any country's foreign policies being aggressive - for instance, a Google search for New Zealand foreign policy agressive turns up quite a few viable sources! Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes redirect and merger into these articles is an option. Second, nobody can deny there is an unique tradition of genuine distrust and/or propaganda towards Russia. A huge country, a military great power with an unprecedented history of expansion that bounds many weaker and smaller states. Russian forgeing policy can cover things like Latin America which is a totally different thing than this. To mix things up is not always better. Lappspira (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV issues. Foreign relations of Russia discusses the topic neutrally. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A textbook WP:POVFORK and an unnecessary one. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  22:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it is an interesting subject, I believe NOTNEO applies here. If a lot more people would write papers on the subject so we wouldn't have to do so much OR it would be fine. I also think that Depictions of Russia in Western Video Games would be a great article as well, but… L3X1 (distænt write) 03:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just a combination of words, not a valid subject. Valid subject would be something like Great Russian chauvinism. My very best wishes (talk) 04:22, 20 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) 19:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asynchronous semaphore

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

Original research. Notability doubtful. No references since 2011. A search turned up no authoritative references. PROD removed without improvement. Rhadow (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nothing in Google news, only a few hundred Google results, which of course doesn't preclude notability, but all of the sources are either affiliated or unreliable (WordPress, for example). I agree with the original research assertion by the nominator because many of its claims aren't even verified in self-published sources. Little indication of passing general notability guidelines. DrStrauss talk 13:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like this tries to highlight a differecen between a "semaphore" and an "asynchronous semaphore". I don't think any such difference exists. Probably want to leave a redirect to Semaphore (programming). -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and failing WP:GNG. I do not believe even a redirect is necessary, doubtful anyone would ever type that in a search box considering the tiny number of Google hits. Ifnord (talk) 22:30, 15 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) 19:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

T W White & Sons

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

Page appears promotional. Authored by SPA whose only other interest is a brand sold by subject. References indicating notability are not reliable sources. Rhadow (talk) 10:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article about a run of the mill car dealership with no significant coverage in reliable sources. PohranicniStraze (talk) 09:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and PohranicniStraze. There should be a speedy delete for ads. Ifnord (talk) 22:31, 15 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. (Rhadow withdrew their nomination) (non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 14:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-pitch climbing

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

~~PROD reverted without improvement. This dictionary definition has been unreferenced for eight years. Its notability is in doubt. Rhadow (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)~~ References added. Rhadow (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable. AfD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google search bring up numerous pages on this subject, not just businesses involved with it but also explanatory articles about it. This seems to be a notable topic. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: clearly a notable practice from the sheer number of sources that cover it in depth, for example (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7). I'll add some of these and somebody at WikiProject Climbing will no doubt be able to further improve it. DrStrauss talk 13:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've substantially improved the article (diff). Rhadow, I note that you have struck out your rationale, do you wish to withdraw the nomination? Thanks, DrStrauss talk 14:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: DrStrauss -- Looks great to me now. Nomination withdrawn. Rhadow (talk) 14:35, 12 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boise Mobile Equipment

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

Promotional article PROD removed without improvement or comment on the talk page by SPA Rhadow (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep it is less promotional than when it was first prodded, has some rs coverage such as this but on the negative side a lot of the refs and ex links are based on the same press release. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What would a reader learn from this article that she could not learn from the subject's website? Nothing. It is neither notable, nor the topic for an encyclopedia. It sure looks like a product catalog that will appear at the top of Google searches, courtesy of WP. Rhadow (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still looks pretty blatantly promotional to me. The bulk of the references come from their own website, and the others are pretty generic - a couple of company profiles, a press release, and a local media mention about landing a contract - basically no significant coverage in reliable sources, and a google search didn't turn up any additional significant RS mentions for me.PohranicniStraze (talk) 09:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and PohranicniStraze. There should be a speedy delete for ads. Ifnord (talk) 22:33, 15 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) 19:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ClickTime.com

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

Non-notable piece of timesheet software. The article is written like an advertisement (per the 3-year old tag), a search for sources returns very little, and the sources present in the article are either non-independent or mere passing soundbites. The article seems to have been created by a single purpose account too. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - references are highly padded with articles that don't mention the company or do so only in passing, not to mention a directory listing. I can't find anything that suggests notability. But promotional content is easy to find - the whole thing. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not coming up with any in-depth coverage in independent sources, either. This does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:COMPANY. gongshow talk 09:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many of the sources in the article are about insignificant stuff, or they're just passing mentions. No indication of notability established. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the points made above. Bluebonnet07 (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH and potential WP:BOMBARDMENT.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:16, 14 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. nom withdrawal (non-admin closure) Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 07:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Ibrahim (footballer, born 1985)

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

No evidence subject meets notability guidelines. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 22:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's a first tier player. Muhammad Abul-Futooh (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the soccerway profile linked in the article shows he has scored 2 goals for Petrjet in the Egyptian Premier League, giving him a technical pass on WP:FOOTBALL. The profile doesn't list appearance data, but you need to play to score. Unfortunately Mohamed Ibraham is not a particularly unusual name, so I'll need to do some more research when time permits. ClubOranje^T 08:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is another footballer of the same name with an article Mohamed Ibrahim (footballer). Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 08:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Having played in the Egyptian Premier League, the article meets WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 15:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question So you guys are confirming that there two Egyptian footballers with the same name that have played in the same time period in national level games? Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 19:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are at least 3 that played in the Egyptian Premier League with the same name, 2 of which have pages, and another with a similar name. There is also a Sudanese player with the same name and several other Players from various places with similar names. ClubOranje^T 07:21, 14 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Anton

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

Appears to be a self publicist with nothing notable to shout about. No evidence from the sources of any notability. He has been in the army, he started up a company etc. etc. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. Not self publicist but more probably paid to have an article as authored by an almost immediately blocked sock , part of a large sock farm. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. His army and business careers are nothing special, routine. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some of the refs are incorrectly used. For example, the Senate action doesn't actually say he was promoted (He probably was). The Order of Saint Maurice should have been Order of Saint Maurice (United States) (big difference) and the cited document is just a list without any explanation. The first ref is about a baseball game.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His army service and medal, while contributing to his notability, do not meet SOLDIER by themselves. Sourcing is scant. Searching for more in a BEFORE doesn't yield much (it does yield police record - of possibly a different Anton - of little notability, though perhaps they may be a motivation for creating a positive wiki page).Icewhiz (talk) 06:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Fails WP:SOLDIER. One appearance on a TV show may be enough for the IMDb, but not here. Some mentions in a book (which is cited twice). I don't think it is fake, but it is largely unsourced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:11, 13 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 the article due to notability, sourcing and COI concerns. Regarding the userpage mentioned by one commenter, I don't believe these concerns apply to pages in user space, so please take it to a separate MfD. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  22:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Toth

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

Does not meet notability requirements for WP:ACADEMIC. Nerd1a4i (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only two cited papers on GS. Far WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Meets #1. criteria for notability in all citations listed in: JAMA Psychiatry (very reliable medical journal), Time Magazine (also very reliable American journalism outlet, 2015-not too soon->2 yrs ago) & Columbia (considerably well known American ivy league university) for verified statistically relevant scientific findings about the dangers of air pollutants on brain development, as well as epidurals in neonatal brain development. Zachary R. Toth M.P.A. (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. H-index of 2 [2] is very far from WP:PROF#C1. No other notability evident. In addition the article appears to be an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY with no significant contributions other than by an editor with the same name as the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — the Time piece says nothing about Toth as an individual, and the Columbia University one is a uni press release (i.e., not really a source independent of the subject) that mentions his name, among all the other co-authors of the study it covers, but says nothing more about him. Furthermore, merely having a paper in a well-regarded journal does not by itself count towards notability, in the absence of evidence that the paper has had a substantial impact. XOR'easter (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User page Zachary R. Toth M.P.A. is a copy of this AfD. It should be deleted too. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Per nom, non-notable and inadequately supported by sources. DaveApter (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete - created by the subject or someone impersonating them, in either case without declaring the COI and putting the article through peer review before it published, per WP:COI. Fails PROF and GNG, and an effort at promotion, which is not what WP is for, per WP:PROMO. Jytdog (talk) 03:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: fails COI and PROMO. DaveApter (talk) 17:00, 18 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mental Space Psychology

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

WP:FRINGE. This is essentially the pet project of one person, with about zero publications from uninvolved authors. Therefore it fails GNG. Lithopsian (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google search confirms the nominator's thesis that this is the author's use of Wikipedia to advance original research. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a detailed article with many references, including references by famous psychologists, such as Amos Tversky. Vorbee (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article lists papers by famous psychologists, but do any of them actually cover this subject? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tons of references do not necessarily WP:RS make, and this is one such example. The vast majority of the references are to other subjects or disciplines, such as neuro-linguistic programming (fringe-y enough itself). Extending these references to support the topic here is WP:OR at its most unadulterated especially given the lack of inline references. This is essentially the original author's personal essay and, if they wish to publish such, can do so elsewhere. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COPYVIO, WP:GNG, WP:COI, WP:FRINGE, etc, etc. Almost every phrase I google gets a hit for something written in a book written by someone else. The article's creator is a prominent member of the Society for Mental Space Psychology (see http://www.somsp.com/about).-Location (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any single source we can say that this was significantly plagiarised from? If so it can be speedily deleted without the need for further discussion. OTOH, if it was cobbled together from multiple sources without any one source being plagiarised enough to be a fatal copyvio then I guess we need to continue. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single source. I looked, and already deleted several sections from different papers. I would have speedy-deleted it if there had been a more obvious source for the whole thing. Some sections may even be sufficiently paraphrased to survive. Then I gave up and decided it should be deleted anyway. Lithopsian (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That was my experience, too. -Location (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If copyvio: Speedy delete.
If not copyvio: Delete anyway. The subject title gets a whopping 4 hits in Google Scholar, which make me think that it is not a true scientific discipline at all, at least not under this name. The article itself is almost unreadable gibberish (I don't think that wikification would help much) and gives the impression of possibly having been pasted from somewhere else, although it is also perfectly possible that it is an original essay. Either way that is no good to us. This is pure supposition but I can't help wondering if this was written for submission to a journal (hence the ludicrous number of supposed references) and then pasted here after it got rejected for obvious reasons. The other possibility is that it is a joke. When I google for a nonsense phrase like "social sidecar personality" I get nothing but the fact that this has been previously deleted from Wikipedia. Maybe somebody is yanking our chain here? Anyway, it makes no difference. Either way it has to go. Maybe salt it as it has been previously deleted. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. Also, give the Kitchen Sink Award to the references section. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:58, 17 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karoliina Tapiovaara

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

An unsourced, one-liner about the illustrator of a book. No improvement two weeks after concerns raised. COI since the article was created by the author of the book. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. I don't read Finnish so I'm listing this here rather than for speedy A7 in case there is evidence of notability out there that I missed. Meters (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to find much about the book in question since most sites don't list that ISBN, but according to Good Reads https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36098415-muru-ja-puru it's an 80-page kid's book published Aug 21, 2017 by Books on Demand. I assume that means it's self-published. Maybe we should just speedy this as promotional? Meters (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see that the subject has done any notable work. The book she illustrated is self-published by the editor, see this edit Mduvekot (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not only "kid's book", it's a fairytale for children AND adults. The writer's book Ikävää, väki? has been two years the most popular in the category of linguistics at eKirjasto (library), and still is. It collects the statistics of all Finland's libraries. Another book, Naaraan, was 14 months the most popular in poems/aphorisms (2nd at the moment). Isn't this notable if the Finnish references are accepted? So you can imagine that Muru ja Puru has many levels. This book has been published last month, therefore I know it's too early to evaluate it's notability. No chartings are available yet. If the voters want to evaluate all the references, site Risto Rekola should be returned - at least temporarily. Risto hot sir (talk) 07:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Risto hot sir (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD, and the writer of the book the subject illustrated. [reply]
- This AFD is not about the notability of Risto hot sir's book. It is about the notability of the illustrator of the book. Whether the book is only for kids is irrelevant as to whether the illustrator is notable. Whether other books by this author or others exist (notable or not) is irrelevant as to whether the illustrator of this book is notable. Whether the book the illustrator worked on eventually becomes notable is irrelevant as to whether the illustrator is currently notable. The author's website is not a reliable source to help determine the illustrator's notability. Meters (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karoliina's grandpa is Tapio Tapiovaara and his brothers are Nyrki Tapiovaara and Ilmari Tapiovaara. Risto hot sir (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC) -[reply]

- Whether the illustrator's relatives are notable is irrelevant (see WP:not inherited). Meters (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the paintings! I've never seen such an artistic eye of a sixteen-year old! Her grandfather had a romance with Tove Jansson during the second world war and he is in fact Nuuskamuikkunen. Risto hot sir (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Your person opinion that she makes nice paintings does not make her notable. And who her other grandfather had a romance with more than 70 years ago is also irrelevant. Please stop adding unsourced irrelevant points to the AFD. We need reliable, independent sources showing that the illustrator is notable. I couldn't find them. No-one else has supplied any. If you can't provide them either then stop trying to save this stub of an article. It simply appears to be promotion of your book and its illustrator. Meters (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - This kind of behaviour reminds me of the palindrome conversation where was shown that the Finns are more than thousand times more interested in palindromes than the English people. But what's the answer: just silence.Risto hot sir (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources and no claim to notability. Agricola44 (talk) 14:57, 13 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) 19:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seema Sreelayam

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

The article Seema Sreelayam is not a notable person. Most links are also not about the person (those are of some eCommerce website URLs),and cannot even find any articles related to person on Newspapers, which may or may not be notable. There is nothing about this person which makes him notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.97.9.38 (talk • contribs) 18:00, September 12, 2017 (UTC)

Comment - I completed the nomination and moved the comment left by the IP nominator at the talk page. Huon (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run of the mill author Seasider91 (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Person has some verifiable references, but lacks recognition in media. Less notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashi 1980 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 14 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  22:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bloombase

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

Non-notable software company. None of the sources in the article amount to substantial coverage under reliable sourcing, and everything I could find online is a press release. The award mentioned in the article is not enough to confer notability. Should be deleted for failure of WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, this had been deleted last September, but it has been around in mainspace for 5 months now, so I feel it might as well go through another AfD compared to G4. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm seeing plenty of press releases, but I can not find in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:COMPANY. gongshow talk 21:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I checked 4 refs and got 4 press releases. If that the best they can come up with ... Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:52, 13 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Virgil Howe

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

Keyboard player for Little Barrie but no evidence of independent notability, apart from having "drummed for a period" with another band (of which there is no detail or proof). Unfortunately he died yesterday and has understandably had tributes published in various publications, but these consist entirely of lists of (Twitter etc.) messages of condolence. Not what I'd call significant independent coverage. Suggest charitably it is (re) re-directed to Little Barrie. Sionk (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this page back in 2006. Various individuals then inputted into the article, but the main content was from me. It existed until Oct 2016 when Sionk re-directed it to Little Barrie for whom he drums (not keyboards, although he plays keys in other projects). I didn't say anything at the time: I think standards have evolved since 2006 and what I'd done then and his level of notability back then probably wouldn't be seen as adequate today. However, Howe's stock has risen since then. Howe's death was announced late last night. An IP editor reverted Sionk's re-direction edit and various people, but chiefly me, have been working on it since. The news of Howe's death has attracted articles in major UK newspapers (e.g. The Independent, Mirror, The Sun) and the music press (e.g. NME). I think that degree of coverage demonstrates notability. No, they're not all terribly detailed articles, but then the news hasn't been out long and his death was unexpected. Given the recency of his death, it seems slightly pointless to start an AfD now, if I might say so. Why not give it a few days and see (a) what the current flurry of editing produces, and (b) what else is published? Bondegezou (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Little Barrie as suggested. WP:BAND states "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." The article does state that he produced one album, but unless it charted or had a national/international tour as the criteria state, it wouldn't merit him an article on his own(regretfully). 331dot (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- - Striking my redirect idea as I'm now a bit clearer on this; consider me a Weak keep. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He's done much more than one album outside of Little Barrie, but this wasn't well described in the article. I've added a Virgil_Howe#Discography section to make it clearer. Still a work in progress, but plenty there. Bondegezou (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aside from his work with Little Barrie, the output with Steve Howe and his session work should satisfy WP:BAND. Needs a few more references, but with those I think it stands up well enough. Plus it's well written and fairly detailed, not the usual rubbish. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which aspect of WP:BAND is met by his work with Steve? 331dot (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles" – Steve Howe (The Steve Howe band, if you like) and Little Barrie are both notable acts. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bondegezou's comments above and the reliable sources discussing Howe's work already present in the article. 28bytes (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The output seems to meet WP:BAND and the detail is good. Bluebonnet07 (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, having a lot of detail isn't a qualifying condition of WP:GNG. Anyone can find a lot of detail from record company websites, fansites and social media. Sionk (talk) 17:31, 13 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 with clear consensus, nac, SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ihor Ševčenko

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

Poorly referenced bio (tagged since 2013) of dubious notability. The award cited is nn itself: some personal foundation award Staszek Lem (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BEFORE. It takes one rudimentary search to find a detailed William Grimes-written news obit in The New York Times describing him as "a leading scholar of Byzantine and Slavic history and literature" and noting his unusual collaboration with George Orwell in the creation of the first Ukranian edition of Animal Farm along with other notable works. [3] And here's an equally detailed Boston Globe obit.[4] Passes WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG easily. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- clear pass of WP:PROF & WP:GNG. In addition to the obits listed above, the Harvard Gazette has an in-depth article: Longtime Harvard professor and Byzantine specialist dies at 87. Plenty of citations in GBooks. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. High GS cites for a low-cited field passes WP:Prof. Suggest withdraw this misguided nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:16, 19 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) 19:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan King

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by never playing in a highly covered league for long enough and no individual awards that I can find. Previously deleted in 2008 and recreated in 2013 when he played in 100 pro games, the standard that has since been more strictly defined in NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The product of an editor who ultimately received a community ban on new article creation for the many hundreds of NN articles (often in open defiance of both community consensus and appropriate notability guidelines) made to bump up his page creation count. As with the vast majority of these articles, the subject here is a journeyman hockey player in the mid-minors with an undistinguished career. Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence he meets the GNG beyond routine sports coverage explicitly debarred from satisfying notability. Ravenswing 06:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails both NHOCKEY and GNG.18abruce (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT: Fails WP:NHOCKEY repeatedly recreated. AaronWikia (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SALT seems a bit much, when it was re-made in 2013 (5 years after it was first deleted), he met the then lower standards for NHOCKEY. It is not like this page has been getting re-made by vandals and the like. Yosemiter (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any evidence he meets WP:GNG. And the NHOCKEY standards have been strengthened since he was created so he no longer gets a reprieve that way. -DJSasso (talk) 11:44, 18 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 merge to Willie Earl Green. Sandstein 06:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Denise "Dee Dee" Walker case

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

Murder case which appears to be non-notable per WP:NCRIME. Little major coverage aside from the CNN article. DrStrauss talk 15:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question Based on the article, which includes the reversal of aan erroneous conviction for murder, there should be extensive news coverage. It's not in the present article. Has the nom. done the required WP:BEFORE search? DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Willie Earl Green (whose exoneration seems to make this notable). There is some more coverage (including a whole book - with the exonerated man as an author (though it seems he wasn't the main author), written incidentally after the Wikipedia article): [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. If kept standalone - it needs to be renamed (e.g. Murder of Denise Walker).Icewhiz (talk) 10:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and Willie Earl Green. My news archive searches on the murder found nothing. I'm not saying that there might not have bee a news story that I missed despite using a variety of keywords, only that there couldn't have been much. What did come up was a BLP1E-type flurry on Green's exoneration. The Los Angeles Times reported the story, Green always maintained he was innocent, kept his nose clean in prison, got an associate degree, worked in the prison library and married his penpal - all while in prison. He had been convicted based on the sole testimony of an eye-witness who was high on cocaine at the time of the murder; also police had falsely informed the witness that Green had previously been convicted of stealing from the murder victim. Judge therefore ruled that Green did not receive a fair trial. Sum total of coverage appears to have been two news stories in the Los Angeles Times, neither very long. Plus an AP story and a UPI story that got picked up by a number of newspapers. All in March 2008. It is a story that tugs at the heartstrings. But I am not persuaded that either the murder victim or the falsely assused man are notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~- (Note: I'll accept if this is a merge but a redirect is not helpful for this unlikely search term) A tragic turn of events but this clearly falls under WP:NOTNEWS. I just cannot find the significant and WP:DIVERSE coverage necessary to argue a level of notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Willie Earl Green. As a stand-alone crime, it was not notable; as a condition it is. Bearian (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above arguments, though possibly the resulting article should be named to reflect a focus on the case and not the people, per WP:1E? Artw (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bearian. The murder is not exceptional but the semi-exoneration is. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It looks like this is heading towards a merge. Normally, after such a merge, the title would be redirected to the merge target. In this case, it's such an unlikely search term, that seems pointless. However, moving this to Dee Dee Walker or Denise Walker, and then redirecting that title would make a lot more sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 13 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alwyn Hamilton

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

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

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of a writer, whose only discernible claim of notability per WP:NAUTHOR is that she exists. And for referencing, what we have here is two primary sources (her own website and her "our authors" profile on the website of her publisher) and one Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself. As always, a writer is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because she exists, and she doesn't get to talk herself into Wikipedia either -- she has to be the subject of enough coverage in reliable sources, written in the third person by people independent of her PR team, to clear WP:GNG. I'm also bundling her debut book, which doesn't have any properly sourced indication of notability either -- its sole source is the exact same Q&A interview that isn't cutting it in the BLP. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alwyn Hamilton, and Rebel of the Sands, too. There are multiple RS of criticism of RoS and also for the sequel. Hamilton passes CREATIVE. I've added sources to her article, but don't have time to work on RoS, though you can see the sources that would be useful for the book in Hamilton's article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the author's article; "Redirect" the book article to the author article. No need for two article on these closely related subjects. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ample evidence appearing in the footnotes for a GNG pass, no need to apply the AUTHOR SNG. Carrite (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seeking additional feedback about book Rebel of the Sands
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Additional sourcing improved article, establishing notability. Montanabw^(talk) 18:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. I expanded Rebel of the Sands with sources (e.g., New York Times, The Guardian) to help show that it meets WP:BKCRIT. gongshow talk 22:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep x2 ("what is all that white fluffy stuff", now now coola:)), Rebel of the Sands meets WP:NBOOK, with multiple reviews (in addition to those in the article, a lot more out there ie Deseret News, common sense media, Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books, New York Journal of Books School Library Journal, Booklist, The Horn Book, School Library Connection, VOYA Reviews phew! that will do:)) and being a NYT best seller, Hamilton meets WP:NAUTHOR, with this book held by over 1000 libraries worldwide (not just Canada and USA but numerous other countries ie. UK, NZ, OZ, Holland) so it is "well known", and has had plenty of reviews. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:00, 13 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Churchix

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

Carefully crafted paid article (per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Shauryanegi) that fails a number of criteria. Churchix is a division of Face-Six LLC, and so fails WP:PRODUCT as it's parent company has questionable notability. Sourcing is a major issue, as while the article has many citations, most of them cover the field of facial recongition and make no mention of Churchix itself, and even those that due only mention it in passing or as part of a list. These failures qualify the article for deletion per WP:MILL and WP:PROMOTION as Churchix is not individually notable. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional, thus failing WP:NOT. The usual paid editor tactic of putting in dozens of sorta-related refs doesn't help Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but rewrite. The article is heavily promotional, but there's considerable press coverage. Mostly negative. "Skipping church - Facial recognition could be tracking you" - Washington Post.[11] "Face recognition software knows when you are skipping church services." - Engadget [12] It's notable as a Big Brother system. The article needs a rewrite and a "controversy" section. John Nagle (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:REFOVERKILL applies here. The sources, as listed above are routine coverage and what tips this over the edge is the terms of use violation. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly promotional coverage is routine lacks significant coverage and fails WP:PRODUCT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:35, 14 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) 19:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theodoric Chew

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

Article contains unnecessary puffery and promotion of the subject. The subject's notability is in question, as the majority of the sources cited lack any depth, only mention the subject in passing, or are user-generated content. Note that while Chew is employed by notable companies, notability is not inherited and press releases do not grant notability per WP:NOTE. Compounding this is the fact that (per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Shauryanegi) an editor was payed via Upwork to create this article. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ,he is working in a notable company but it is not notability is not inherited and every employee in notable company is not notable.Lacks indepth WP:SIGCOV and is promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:15, 14 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) 19:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KAIS (musician)

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

Not enough coverage to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Only listed source is WP:PRIMARY. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, article suffers from a lack of significant coverage and fails WP:MUSICBIO. Many notable subjects are made by the article in question but per policy WP:NOTINHERITED these do not confer notability on the subject musician.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:MUSICBIO. Seems to be a talented guy and may well be notable in the future, but for now all he really has is some self-released records on Bandcamp and gigs around his local Vancouver scene. The two most notable claims in the article, winning an award at the London Independent Film Festival and an honorable mention in the International Songwriting Contest, are both for the video of one of his songs and its director, not for the actual song itself. Richard3120 (talk) 14:38, 13 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) 19:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Corbett

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only WP:ROUTINE sources covering his comings and goings in lower minor leagues and his training camp appearances. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by not playing in a highly covered league for long enough to presume notability (he is at 93 games in the AHL and at this rate he is several years off from the 200) and has not won any major individual awards (an All-Star game appearance is the highest I found). Yosemiter (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article is a start towards GNG but not enough. Rlendog (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet any of the notability criteria at WP:NHOCKEY and all of the coverage appears to be routine sports reporting, which means WP:GNG is also not met. Papaursa (talk) 23:34, 18 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) 19:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

T. J. Syner

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with a bunch of WP:ROUTINE sources about signings and such. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by not playing in high enough covered leagues to presume notability and no major individual awards. Yosemiter (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this person does not meet any of the criteria listed at WP:NHOCKEY. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The product of an editor who ultimately received a community ban on new article creation for the many hundreds of NN articles (often in open defiance of both community consensus and appropriate notability guidelines) made to bump up his page creation count. As with the vast majority of these articles, the subject here is a journeyman hockey player in the minors with an undistinguished career and no awards, noteworthy or otherwise. Ravenswing 04:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not finding significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 13:46, 16 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) 19:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Sides

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only WP:ROUTINE sources. Has not played in a high enough league for long enough and has not not won any major awards (only a an All-Star game appearance, not a First Team All-Star) to pass WP:NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The product of an editor who ultimately received a community ban on new article creation for the many hundreds of NN articles (often in open defiance of both community consensus and appropriate notability guidelines) made to bump up his page creation count. As with the vast majority of these articles, the subject here is a journeyman hockey player in the mid-minors with an undistinguished career. Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence he meets the GNG beyond routine sports coverage explicitly debarred from satisfying notability. Ravenswing 06:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not finding significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 13:44, 16 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) 19:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Wilson (ice hockey)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only a few WP:ROUTINE sources about signings and such. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by not playing in a high enough league for long enough to presume notability and has won no individual awards that I can find. Yosemiter (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The product of an editor who ultimately received a community ban on new article creation for many hundreds of NN article to bump up his page creation count. As with the vast majority of these creations, the subject here is a journeyman hockey player in the mid-minors with an undistinguished career and no awards, noteworthy or otherwise. Ravenswing 16:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Behn Wilson with an h is a notable hockey player, but not Ben Wilson. Rlendog (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The leagues he's played in are all ones where notability is not automatic for all players, but requires a higher burden such as playing a certain specific high number of games in that league or winning pre-eminent honours — but he meets neither of those higher standards, and there's no alternative evidence that he would pass WP:GNG on the strength of the media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 14:44, 19 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) 19:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mihaela Alexandra Grigore

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

None of the footnotes actually lead to any coverage in independent sources. Any one of them are simple photos or self-promotional profiles on self-published websites. - Andrei (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vanity page about an entirely non-notable individual. No independent sources showing the subject might meet WP:BIO. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Written by SPA whose 1st edit was creating this page. All OR, no RS. Seems to be a vanity or fanpage. Agricola44 (talk) 15:00, 13 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) 19:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Kattelus

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only a few WP:ROUTINE sources about signings and such. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by not playing in a high enough league for long enough to presume notability and has won no individual awards that I can find. Yosemiter (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The product of an editor who ultimately received a community ban on new article creation for many hundreds of NN article to bump up his page creation count. As with the vast majority of these creations, the subject here is a journeyman hockey player in the mid-minors with an undistinguished career and no awards, noteworthy or otherwise. Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 16:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY, WP:N and WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not finding significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 13:39, 16 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) 19:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Bushee

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only a few WP:ROUTINE sources about signings and such. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by not playing in a high enough league for long enough to presume notability and has won no individual awards that I can find. Yosemiter (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The product of an editor who ultimately received a community ban on new article creation for many hundreds of NN article to bump up his page creation count. As with the vast majority of these creations, the subject here is a journeyman hockey player in the mid-minors with an undistinguished career and no awards, noteworthy or otherwise. Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 16:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not finding significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 13:37, 16 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. J. Motte

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

Only finding WP:ROUTINE type sources which are not typically enough for WP:GNG. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by not playing in a high enough league (at least not yet). His All-WCHA team selections is not the same as the NCAA All-American teams, and therefore is insufficient to presume notability. Yosemiter (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The product of an editor who ultimately received a community ban on new article creation for many hundreds of NN article to bump up his page creation count. This is one of his stocks in trade: someone who won an award that he claimed (in violation of both consensus and the explicit text of the guideline) met the guideline's criteria. Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 16:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not sure I understand how he fails WP:NHOCKEY but somehow Jamie Russell passes. Both got WCHA honours, is it some distinction between coach and player that gives one award more weight than the other?18abruce (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Neither do; I'd already withdrawn my vote on the Russell AfD. Ravenswing 16:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see enough for GNG, and fails NHOCKEY.18abruce (talk) 19:05, 14 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. The argument that this content is WP:OR is compelling, and not successfully rebutted. Creating a similar article that is based on reliable sources is however possible. Sandstein 06:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Types of mythological or fantastic beings in contemporary fiction

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

Unsourced for two years, comprised of original research. Proper sourcing is not possible, as the topic is by design "monsters that are similar to other monsters in other works of fiction". Bright☀ 14:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete this festival of fannish OR. Mangoe (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No citations provided to similar cross-comparisons in reliable sources that would demonstrate notability under WP:NOTESAL. (Will change !vote if such citations are added.) —chaos5023 (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fancruft listing that compares franchises and book series, all of which is original research and not of encyclopedic value. No reliable source news articles that attempt to juxtapose the franchises' monster lists on a large scale. For a similar discussion see Talk:K-pop#RfC:_.22Is_a_most_viewed_list_from_several_sources_acceptable.3F.22 AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC) updated 14:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it stands, the article is full of synthesis and OR. I am not aware of ay reliable sources that discuss all these varied fictional series along all of these parameters. Once synth and OR were deleted, there is nothing left. Whilst I appreciate the work that went into this table, it is just not up to Wikipedia verification requirements. Hence, delete. --Mark viking (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks more like someone's private research project. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The very first source that I found when checking this out was this whole academic book about the subject from a reliable publisher. Notability is a function of the article subject, not of the current state of an article. The previous comments all seem to be based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT with no indication that any attempt has been made to find sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. That book starts right in about Moby Dick, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the fantasy creatures listed in this article. And the table of contents also has little or nothing to do with the article, devoting chapters to King Kong, the Island of Dr Moreau, and cryptozoology. Seems to me you judged the book by its title. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And it seemed that you judged this article by its current contents rather than its topic. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Monsters in contemporary fiction" is a source-able and notable topic, "monsters that are similar to each other in contemporary fiction" is an un-source-able topic that is necessarily synthesis. Bright☀ 19:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Darned right I judged the article by its content. That's all we have to go on now. If the content is to be entirely replaced to follow what reliable sources say, then that's the same as deleting it and starting over. Therefore, my point still stands. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOR, WP:FANCRUFT and not well sourced synthesis. Ajf773 (talk) 07:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify. Per my comment above: The only reliable source even mentioned so far has nothing to do with this article. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, notability is an attribute of a subject, not of an article as it is currently written. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only if the content has anything to do with the notable subject. In this case, it doesn't. Therefore, it needs to be rewritten completely, which is the same as deleting and starting over. Once it is deleted, nothing prevents anyone from starting a new article about the subject that's actually notable. Simply titling an article after a notable subject doesn't mean it should be kept. The content matters. If we just keep the article title, it's no better than a placeholder. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, not a placeholder, but a stub, which is the usual start for an article about a notable topic. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A stub needs to have content to avoid speedy deletion. You would have to replace the present content entirely with something else. There is nothing preventing anyone, including you, from creating such a stub once it is deleted. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 86.17.222.157's argument that it's the subject matter and not the article which determines notability - a salient policy point which I hope the AfD closer will take under advisement. There's absolutely no doubt that the article itself is in terrible condition, but the majority of the fictional universes included here have been written about fairly extensively, so I would think that the material - which at this point is almost totally unreferenced - is referencable. I'd suggest that the creator and major editors of the article be told that they have a set amount of time -- say a year -- to get the referencing up to snuff, and if it hasn't been done by that time, it can be brought back to AfD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen no evidence yet that the subject (a list of fantasy works cross-referenced with the creatures therein) is a notable subject at all. Even the one reference the IP address mentioned above isn't about that, the book is about the evolution of an entirely different genre of creatures in literature. Just because a mere title sounds notable doesn't mean that it is. Just because you believe it's notable doesn't mean that it is. Come up with some evidence. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you seem to be agreeing with the creators of this article in defining the subject by its current content. The subject is defined by the title, and the book that I cited clearly has significant reliable coverage of types of fantastic beings in contemporary fiction. That is as long as "contemporary" is defined from the viewpoint of an old man like me rather that of many Wikipedia editors for whom 1999 is a lifetime away. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you don't seem to understand that article titles without any content cannot be kept on Wikipedia. The content is what matters here. If you replace the content completely with other content, that's no different from deleting the article and creating a new one. Once again you haven't offered a policy-based reason to keep this. (And by the way, 1999 feels like a very short time ago to me, to give you perspective on my age.) ~Anachronist (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely arbitrary list that randomly groups certain things while ignoring others. A "complete" list would be the largest article on this site, yet would have no value. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but it needs secondary sources discussing/comparing the "ecology" or "bestiaries" of different fantasy worlds. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the problem. Do you know of such sources? If they cannot be found, then this article cannot be kept. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but it needs work. It could be used for navigation: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." (WP:LISTN) I added Stargate with links to specific creatures. The scope of the article needs to be improved: what is classic (include "gothic"?), which settings (franchises/multiple media, equivalent to 20? books/10? movies/100? episodes), which types (10? max, generalized). I would say inclusion of a setting needs at least 3? columns/articles to link to in the table. Sources could be added to column or row headers or individual cells. These beings tie in with Jungian archetypes, The Hero with a Thousand Faces, The Seven Basic Plots,.... StrayBolt (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not seeing where the creatures are being compared across the various franchises and with a large-scale "does it have vampires? Werewolves? Fairies? Medusas?" kind of treatment. Yes, you can find sources that show a certain monster type is in the film but so what? The individual types of monsters are comparable like with the vampires, as there are books on vampire fiction, but not collections like this. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Per all above(and Anchronist).The closer may be reminded that argument in the likes of --There exists sources...., without any evidence is in it's essentiality a null vote.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 06:12, 20 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) 19:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Bigos

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

Only finding WP:ROUTINE sources insufficient for WP:GNG. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by not playing in a high enough league to assume coverage and his highest award I can find was a Junior A tournament MVP. Yosemiter (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The product of an editor who ultimately received a community ban on new article creation for many hundreds of NN article to bump up his page creation count. As with the vast majority of these creations, the subject here is a journeyman hockey player in the mid-minors with an undistinguished career and no awards, noteworthy or otherwise. Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 16:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Undistinguished minor league player, fails both NHOCKEY and GNG.18abruce (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Rlendog (talk) 13:35, 16 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 no consensus. Sandstein 06:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 1940 Canadian federal election

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As a compromise position at a time when the notability of non-winning election candidates was still a matter of debate, consensus started to permit non-winning candidates to be given mini-bio subsections in merged lists. So I'll grant that all of these were good faith creations at the time. However, consensus has now deprecated that, so that lists of this type are now permitted only to follow the table format demonstrated by Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 2015 Canadian federal election: their names can be present in the table, but per WP:BIO1E we're not allowed to maintain an entire biographical mini-article about each individual candidate anymore. Non-winning candidates simply aren't a matter of enduring public interest for that fact itself — if they're not notable enough for a standalone article, then they shouldn't have the content equivalent of a standalone article embedded into a list either. None of these lists are even comprehensive — the closest to a complete list in the entire bunch is 2006, which includes just 13 candidates out of a possible 308. If there were actually any editorial will to get these cleaned up for comprehensiveness and the removal of the biographical sketches, then I'd happily leave them alone — but that cleanup simply isn't and hasn't been happening at all, so the ones that aren't conforming to the rules they have to conform to need to go. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 22 August 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 August 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've updated the 1940 article to the proper format (for one province), and I'll suggest that the nomination for that page should be withdrawn accordingly. I could add the other provinces and update the other pages as well (though not right away); given that the subject matter is considered encyclopedic, I'm wondering if it would make sense to simply move the pages out of the main article space until such time as they've been properly updated. CJCurrie (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to support that alternative as well. Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All - Bearcat is completely misrepresenting BIO1E when they say we are "not allowed to maintain an entire biographical mini-article about each individual candidate anymore." That is nowhere in the guideline, nor should it be — I would advocate IAR to trump any such nonsense even if that were in the guidelines, which it is not. The rest of the nomination is purely an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not misrepresenting anything whatsoever. The rule for candidates most certainly is that if they do not qualify for a standalone article, then we are not allowed to simply paste the same depth of content about them into another article and keep it just because that other article is titled as a list instead of a standalone bio. BIO1E and BLP1E apply to all articles which contain information about people, not just to standalone biographical articles titled with an individual person's name — lists of people are still subject to the exact same content policies that govern what we can or cannot say about a person in any other article that might contain biographical information. And as for cleaning them up being an editing matter, the issue has been lingering for years without anybody taking on the task of doing anything about it — there is a point beyond which "could be cleaned up" ceases to be a compelling rationale anymore for keeping content that isn't getting cleaned up. And I suppose YMMV, but at least to me seven years of nobody actually caring about cleaning these up does fall on the blow it up and start over side of that line. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep nowhere in 1E does it say that such "mini-articles" are not permitted. As Carrite already said, this is a gross misrepresentation. CJK09 (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1E doesn't have to specifically mention "mini-articles" to be applicable — it deprecates maintaining any extended biographical content at all about 1E's beyond mentioning their name where it's contextually relevant to do so, and doesn't have to individually readdress every possible form that such deprecated content might be presented in. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete mini articles about candidates who did not win are clearly against our policy and guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability policies only apply to articles, not sections within articles. In fact, it is entirely appropriate and in many cases recommended to merge such non-notable topics into sections within a larger, notable article. And in any case, AFD is not cleanup, and if the topic is notable, which nobody has explained why it isn't and even Bearcat implied that it is by citing, and not nominating, an article that is in the so-called "proper" format, then it should be kept and cleaned up. Smartyllama (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this has been over seven years of not getting cleaned up, and there has to be a deadline beyond which if an article still hasn't been cleaned up it doesn't get to sit around anymore continuing to wait for cleanup that isn't happening. And secondly, notability policies do apply to sections within articles; for example, a "list of people from city" is not allowed to contain non-notable entries at all, and articles are not allowed to contain extended biographical sketches of people who are named in them but don't qualify for standalone BLPs. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. See WP:NODEADLINE. Smartyllama (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a user essay, not a binding policy, so I'm entirely within my right to have and express different views as long as I explain my reasoning in depth (which I did) and don't just rest on "I can ignore that just because it's an essay" arguments (which I didn't). Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. These candidates could be listed in individual election articles, but there's no justification for lumping them all together in one big list. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean exactly what was done? There are separate articles for each election. I'm not sure what you're suggesting, or what you think is being done here. Smartyllama (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, there are separate articles for each election already — Clarityfiend's whole point was that those articles vitiate the need to maintain these articles alongside those. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable subject. The rest might be an editing issue if it is a real issue at all. Agathoclea (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly is a real issue, and these people are not notable subjects. Bearcat (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability guidelines relate solely to what topics are suitable for an entire article and have nothing to say about what information may, or may not, be included as part of a broader article. Thincat (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our notability standards most bloody certainly do govern what can or cannot be included as part of a broader article. BLP1E/BIO1E, for instance, do not just apply to standalone biographies, but govern how much we are or are not allowed to say about an individual who falls under it in any article: an article about an event is not allowed to contain BLP1E-related biographies of individual participants in it; an article about a company is not allowed to maintain biographical sketches of individual people who work at that company, and on and so forth. Our standards for the notability of individual people pertain to all articles, and not only to standalone biographies titled with a person's own name. Bearcat (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is, I think, mistaken. WP:BLP policy certainly applies everywhere but you cited WP:BIO1E which is part of the notability guidelines. WP:N says (nutshell) " The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." The first paragraph says "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." It also says "although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." so this is a matter for talk page consensus, not deletion. WP:BIO1E is part of WP:Notability (people) which in general refers back to WP:N. Here, I accept, the nutshell says "Notability criteria may need to be met for a person to be included in a standalone list article." (italics added). WP:Stand-alone lists is referred to which simply suggests what might be done "typically". BLP apart, all this is guidance and people should read and understand it as best they can and then form a considered opinion. Such matters are decided by consensus and people are not to have their !votes rejected if they do not !vote in a particular way. The hard rules you refer to do not exist. People are allowed (but are not required) to adopt strict rules for notability though the guidelines suggest not to do this. If there are BLP matters that is another matter entirely and potentially contentious material must be referenced or removed. Thincat (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there is no rule that we can't maintain a list of the candidates — there is a legitimate question as to whether such lists are necessary if they simply reduplicate information already present in the election's basic results tables, but that's a separate matter from this. But the rules do dictate that the list cannot contain extended biographies of any individual candidate who doesn't qualify to have a full standalone biography located at his or her own name — if a person does not qualify for a full standalone biography located at their own name, then keeping the exact same content about them, just because the article's title isn't their name, is not an alternative path to retention. Bearcat (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting all to allow further discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 14:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Come on, closer, step up to the plate. This is not a hard call. Carrite (talk) 10:33, 19 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Burvall

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

WP:BLP1E -- no notability beyond that Lombardanian (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you say in your edit summary "The article Amy Burvall should be deleted per WP:BLP1E. She lacks notability, and be page appears to be maintained by an associate who resists any changes.)"? If so 1) I am not associated with her in any way 2) Is this AFD a form of revenge for reverting you? Are you 209.117.61.226? Philafrenzy (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reason given for deletion is invalid. This is not an BLP1E case as the article and the sources make clear. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete passing mentions that do not establish true notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Educators' Videos Become YouTube Sensations"

"Amy Burvall & Herb Mahelona: History rock stars"

"Amy Burvall's history lessons set to pop songs are a smash hit on the web"

"Historyteachers videos in the classroom: interview with Amy Burvall"

The others are about her too as she is the main figure in the project. How are these "passing mentions"? Did you even look at the sources John? Philafrenzy (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no comeback defending this deletion rationale because there can be no comeback. These are clearly multiple instances of substantial coverage in independently-published sources of presumed reliability — the essence of a GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources of significance. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Must heed WP:NPF here. Even then, subject's internet videos don't seem to have spurred anything notable (per WP's definition of significance) or enduring. 158.59.127.132 (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BIO and WP:GNG, with WP:SIGCOV in several reliable sources, including The Washington Post and The Sydney Morning Herald. Edwardx (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 14:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG (not WP:PROF). Along with the newspaper stories currently cited as sources there are several potential book sources from later dates, demonstrating continuing interest in the story [13] [14] [15]. If there were a parent topic we could redirect to, this might be a case for BIO1E, but there isn't — her videos are the topic, and making the title of the article be her name instead of something more cumbersome like Amy Burvall history videos is a reasonable editorial choice, backed up by an appropriate level of personal detail about Burvall. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of the delete !votes here are frankly nonsensical. There are multiple articles in reliable sources that are solely about Burvall and her videos [16][17][18][19] – how can that not be significant coverage? I can appreciate the WP:BLP1E concerns, so perhaps rename to History for Music Lovers, but as David says that makes no difference to the actual content. – Joe (talk) 10:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I am very dubious of her notability, but I do not know enough to feel qualified to vote. I am not doubting veracity, merely notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 14:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This individual has be the subject of multiple instances of substantial, independently published coverage in sources of presumed reliability and therefore passes the General Notability Guideline. See the footnotes for those, no need to search for more on the web. Allegations of BLP-1E are misplaced; this exception to GNG is for something exceptional not actually dealing with an achievement or meaningful activity of the subject — such as, for example, winning the lottery or appearing on a live television show and farting loudly. Such single incidents generate masses of news coverage which are to be disregarded; as opposed to someone who is known for one thing, such as being an expert on the reproduction of mako sharks or being the inventor of the traffic light or — yes — being the creator of historically rewritten song videos. This is something completely different. Note the word EVENT in "BLP-1E." Carrite (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep per GNG. Adequate sourcing to establish notability. Montanabw^(talk) 18:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- meets WP:GNG per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 19 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. Despite the very impressive puppetry by single purpose accounts. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 06:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Richey

AfDs for this article:

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

As an artist musician this has failed for BLP. Biographer has personal knowledge of the subject. no connection to Arista Records whatsoever. no connection to Lonnie Mack whatsoever. --12.38.238.66 (talk) 11:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— 12.38.238.66 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - Completing nomination on behalf of IP. Above text was copied from article talk page. As for my own view, previous nomination from 2011 was a clear keep, and more sources are easily found. Easily passes WP:GNG. --Finngall ^talk 14:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 1) No link supports biographers clams of subjects early life. All links are toward a periodical but nothing supporting claim. 2) No link or evidence of career joining Arista Records. Biographer appears to have personal knowledge of equipment as in "1963 body and 1965 neck, pick-up, amp and effects". No supporting Links Whatsoever. This page has problems with verifiability from reliable sources and does meet the Wikipedia Criteria for speedy Deletion.Ifyouwill (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ifyouwill: Question - Are you the same person as the IP above? --Finngall ^talk 16:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What? Ifyouwill (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Ifyouwill (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep – (responding to IP request on my talk page) On the surface, I don't see why this is nominated for deletion. She has a AllMusic bio,[20] which also has four album reviews, and is mentioned in blues journals like Living Blues, Blues Review, etc. (these refs could be added). 12.38.238.66, Ifyouwill, and 174.97.1.181 (who requested my comment) appear to be WP:Single-purpose accounts and I question their motives here. I'll change to "delete" if someone gives some better reasons. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The apparent SPA edting here is still bothersome. Additionally, their arguments are not based on WP:MUSICBIO, which lists several notability criteria for music. Having releases on a major record label is not the sole criterion (they keep arguing about Arista) if the artist meets others, e.g., #1. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please look more closely Ojorojo. There is no verifiable reference for connection to a major record label on Allmusic ether. All recordings listed there are self-produced. WP:NPOV No connection to Arista Records can be found. Motive is Truth 174.97.1.181 (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google can be used for searches other than the name of the topic. For example ["Kelly Richey" Arista], shows that Kelly Richey "started touring in 1986 with a band on Arista records called Stealin' Horses". The problem as stated for Arista can be fixed with editing. The deletes also correctly note that the article contains some material that does not have inline citations and appears to not be verifiable. Again, the problem as stated can be fixed with editing. As per WP:Editing policy, fixable problems are not reasons for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, *Stealin' Horses* was a single solo album and had Mandy Meyer, Steve Lukather and Danny Kortchmar on Electric Guitars. In case you can't find Danny Kortchmar, he's on G.E. Smith's website. Danny played for James Taylor and Carol King and many more but you don't have a wiki page for him! While no one named Kelly nor Richey sang or played a single solo note on Arista Records Stealin' Horses or anything else Arista Records! Not a Signed Artist to Arista! More to come...174.97.1.181 (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was it too much trouble to do the Google search I provided? The 3rd snippet states, "Kelly Richey, an American blues rock guitarist, singer, and composer ... joining Stealin' Horses in 1986, the band was signed to Arista records." The 7th snippet states, "At 23, Richey joined Arista band Stealin' Horses, and she toured and". The 8th states, "produced by Kiya Heartwood, of the '90s band Stealin' Horses, which was on the Arista label." The 9th and last states, "Shortly after joining Stealin' Horses in 1986, the band was signed to Arista records." Unscintillating (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Unscintillating. http://waddywachtelinfo.com/StealinHorses.html no kelly richey here ether 174.97.1.181 (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One more note Unscintillating. As you can see from the Waddy Wachtel info Arista released that album 1885, not later. She is not on the record and has never been signed to a Major Record Label as her Wikibio States! This is the beginning of a deep credibility issue 174.97.1.181 (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
as a kid I was a janitor for Bill Graham. I met Richie Furay and he invited me to play with him. I did for a while but that does not make me a member of his record company. The record company did not sign Kelly Richey or me. I have a phone call into Jim O'Neal and am waiting on a return call to verify if Living Blues Magazine ever did a review or write-up on anything Kelly Richey. If she has been reviewed by a writer in LB I will apologize to Ojorojo and Unscintillating for dragging yous into it and I’ll vote "keep".174.97.1.181 (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you did on your google Unscintillating Ok, Ok, I’ll try this again. Stealin horses did “One" Album for Arista, Solo, Single (1). Released in 1985. Other albums were produced and released independently. Not Arista nor Clive Davis or any other Major Record Label. The label dropped them. Kelly Richey has never been associated with Arista, Clive Davis or a Major Label. It's all debunked by it's timeline. Please find one Arista record anyplace that has Kelly Richey on it. Bet you can't! Anyway, Clive was kinda busy with Whitney Houston back then. 174.97.1.181 (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is based on WP:NPOV and WP:BLP with due diligence. Ifyouwill Unscintillating Ojorojo Finngall 12.38.238.66 I called Jim O'Neal from Living Blues Magazine and asked them to search for any “Reviews" or “Short Take’s" for Kelly Richey. I received a return phone call from Melanie of LBM Oxford MS. Nothing was found in their Data Base on Kelly Richey or Kelly Ritchie. As I suspected, a quality magazine with their high standards has never reviewed Kelly Richey. Also have had a response from Peter Edge office of Sony Music that acquired RCA that Acquired Arista and no Artist in their data base was budgeted or promoted named Kelly Richey. The subject in question is self-produced, self-titled amateur music production, self-published for a self-named label WP:MUSICBIO. A biographer that made claim that Kelly Richey was a Major Recording Artist failed. This page is not properly sourced and the Inline citations WP:CS are also bogus! Edits won’t fix this page. WP:BLP glad to help and was nice getting in touch 174.97.1.181 (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— 174.97.1.181 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

And Here is the other Stealin Horses record on Waldoxy Records. http://www.allmusic.com/album/mesas-and-mandolins-mw0000664298/credits Kelly Richey is NOT listed on the credits for guitars or vocals on this one ether. Does anybody get this? TRUTH 174.97.1.181 (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, looked up all the Kiya Heartwood of Stealin Horses solo records, and Kelly Richey is not credited on any of them ether. Incidentally Kiya also does not even have a wikipage. Wishing Chair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishing_Chair 174.97.1.181 (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Wow, 174.97.1.181, you really, really, really want to delete this page! Regardless of your efforts, your persuasiveness is weakened by editing from an IP address rather than a proper profile. So is your mostly SPA edit history. They raise red flags among veteran editors and administrators who will likely question your motives and investigate you for sock-puppetry. That aside, there is indeed a lot of self-promotional verbiage here, mostly from the subjects own website. Yes, the sort of puffery you are exposing is a re-occurring problem on wikipedia. Claims of being with a major label with only the slightest, tangential connection is classic resume padding. (The type I notice most often is the insistence a non-notable subsidiary of a major label is the same as being on a major label, but I digress.)

Allmusic profiles are especially bothersome. Once upon a time an Allmusic listing meant something, acknowledging recording artists with worthy track records. Ever since the company was acquired by the Rovi database in 2011 it has become a collecting ground of information on simply anything in their database that is for sale—in essence providing profiles for something that proves existence only. (and I don’t think anyone will argue this artist doesn’t exist.) Nonetheless, a profile there is still held up as a gold standard source among AfD editors who don’t bother to dig deeper. Having said all that, there is the undeniable matter of this subject’s somewhat extensive coverage in local (i.e. Cincinnati region) media. These indeed add up to likely notability. I’m voting weak keep, however, because these are nearly all dead links, making my efforts to verify them impossible. My independent search finds interviews and promo-ish type content, or—such as the Guitar Player reference—something trivial in nature but half-notable for the mere recognition by such an authoritative source. The subject’s own website touts additional coverage not cited in this article. Reviews of her work are in abundance among smaller, niche sources. Bottom line: this is truly a borderline ivote, My experience of investigating many AfD nominations suggest this is someone at the very lowest possible level of notability on a common sense level, but squeaks through per wikipedia’s more broadly defined criteria. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ShelbyMarion, Thank You, really, really, really are redundant intensifiers even with the italic on the third. WoW, As to my non-participating in wiki because could be it is new to me. Can a nobody from the sideline point out the truth? As for motive “If everybody Lies the truth becomes unimportant". Motive frankly, It’s as I said. “TRUTH". I don’t care if I have a 10Million edit account because this is about truth and nothing but the truth. This is a "Biography of a Living Person" that I am certain Could Uses it as a promotional tool. Like you said Allmusic is not really screening their source, so it’s kinda pay to play (P2P), yet I have inquired. Allmusic is the only generator of the Major Record Label fallacy. You Know, I have been burnt and have seen "Used Car Salesmen" and "Real Estate Agents” that should be jailed for this type of misrepresentation. Ojorojo states, "just add one of her many reviews from Living Blues". So, I knew how to reach them and I went to the mountain and you know what I found? Never Happened. ShelbyMarion, would you like me to Contact Guitar Player Magazine to see if they have ever reviewed Kelly Richey? They may have because it’s not the same kinda rag as LBM. (P2P) As of now, I can’t find anything to link her to GPM other than her website. So, I won’t change my thought’s along these lines after I did this exercise in police research. I have discovered that good school’s won’t let their students use wiki as a reference, but I digress. Using wiki to spread lies is not a crime that I am aware of. If you want to buy a used car or an old house, I’m who you want with you! "research and results” all I attempted to do is debunk or discredit the first line in the Bio. I believe I accomplished that and more. "To whom know’s the truth or not, no one can not make another acknowledge it." Me, Myself and I * 174.97.1.181 (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IPs attempt to mischaracterize my comments just further underscores the problems with their arguments here. I wrote "She has a AllMusic bio, which also has four album reviews, and is mentioned in blues journals like Living Blues, Blues Review, etc. (these refs could be added)" (my emphasis). I did not "state" or imply "just add one of her many reviews from Living Blues". She is mentioned in connection to a song in Living Blues (p. 57),[21] album reviews in Blues Review,[22][23], Modern Drummer[24], and Big City Blues Magazine.[25] I am not saying that this plus AllMusic, etc., adds up to satisfying MUSICBIO #1, but I am not reading any credible arguments that they don't. Of course, we could all just settle for THE TRUTH as expounded by three SPAs who just happened to show up on the same AfD for an article that has had only a few maintenance edits in the last five years. —Ojorojo (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven’t mischaracterized your comments Ojorojo. What you have shown could be proper inline reference. Kelly Richey’s with the ('s) is my guess why LBM couldn’t find it. It’s not a review or a short take and that’s what I had them search. She’s still not associated with a Major Record Label as the page states. So that is a fallacy. Whoever wrote the bios on Allmusic/Wiki said she is associated with a major label. Please would you hunt for evidence of that? Even Kiya Heartwood that landed that record deal doesn’t associate herself with Arista Records. I can not find evidence of Kelly Richey ever playing with Stealin Horses. Stealin’ Horses Bios on Allmusic Mention Kelly Richie a couple of times yet, Stealin” Horses has a few Guitar Players that are "Rock and Roll Hall of Fame” inductees that aren’t mentioned in it. Doesn’t that seem curious to you? And Allmusic bios are the only place. 174.97.1.181 (talk) 00:32, 3 September 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)}}} 18:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

more, I see you went on an editing spree adding pages to support weak content from who knows who. Lots a work for an impartial editor!
This is a Biography of a Living Person. Does anybody think it should be notable without using substandard interviews? The new thing that replaced the other is really weak. Here is an interview from who knows who about someone stating something in the interview that can not be verified. What we have here: Lacks support, has no integrity.
If she worked in Nashville and “Joined" the Major Record Label band and toured a year as she said, I would think there should be a Contract with the Musicians Union. Local 257
Think about this Example: Dave Matthews of the Dave Mathews Band also "Sat-In" with the performers that came trough the club where he was a bartender in Virginia circa 1986. 15 years later after selling millions upon millions of records he could sell out practically every venue on the planet. I'd consider that worthy of a wikipage. Example: Bill Bartlett among other things did "Black Betty" another artist sold millions of records and his wiki page was taken down. Really, I still say: Failed. 174.97.1.181 (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - More than enough coverage to justify an article. Robman94 (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The so-called "personal knowledge" (ie, the details about the guitar and strings) referenced by 12.38.238.66 and Ifyouwill comes directly from the Guitar Player magazine interview with Richey. Furthermore, the edit history of both Ifyouwill and 174.97.1.181 suggest that they are the same person. Finally, an iplocation.net look-up shows that IP 174.97.1.181 comes from Cincinnati, OH which is coincidentally the same location that Richey is from, suggesting that the IP knows the subject and may add light on why they appear to have such a personal ax to grind against the subject. Robman94 (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That link didn't work for me. So, anyway; Why is Kiya Heartwood listed and was a member in the Nashville Musicians Association Local 257 and Kelly Richey is not, and was not? Do you think she was on tour as a member of that band and went on a stage without membership? Ask Nashville Musicians Association (tel: 615-244-9514) 174.97.1.181 (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you trying to say? Are you suggesting that Richey was never a member of Stealin Horses? If so, how do you explain this publicity photo, with their names under their pictures no less? As for the link that doesn't work for you (but works for me), here's a quote:

To say that Richey has bonded with her guitar is an understatement. “I’ve had this Strat for more than 20 years,” she laughs. “It has been the one constant in my life, and it never leaves my side. It’s a magical instrument-my friends say I’ll be buried with it. It has a ‘65 neck and a ‘63 body, but there’s nothing original except the wood and the knobs. When I was young and stupid, I got rid of the pickups because I wanted the ones that didn’t buzz. I even cut a big hole in the body and installed a Kahler whamm!! Now I have a traditional trem pulled flush to the body with four springs, so I really have to push on the bar to make it work. The neck has big frets-which I love-and the pickguard is wired with Duncan Classic Stack pickups and new pots. I use S.I.T. Strings-gauged .010-.046- which I change every night because I play so hard. And, thanks to Joe Walsh, I use a .60mm nylon Dunlop pick. He showed me how to get more traction on each note by using the fat, textured end of these picks instead of their points. I’m not a strong fingerpicker, but I use my middle and ring fingers in conjunction with my pick all the time. When the music gets quiet, and I want to pull more out of each note, I’ll put the pick between my middle and index fingers and play lead with my fingertips.” Robman94 (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank You, that promo photo Verified Kelly Richie wasn't on Arista when it was taken. She was with that band after the Major Record Label drop them! So we can close that element for good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1303:4143:1835:814A:96A3:5D78 (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— 2605:A000:1303:4143:1835:814A:96A3:5D78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I am curious how an un-dated photo proves that, but no matter, if your point is that she didn't record for Arista, I have no argument and I took the mention of Arista out of the article a while ago. If you want to know what really happened, read this article. But, none of that explains your delete !vote and the level of effort that you are putting forward to get this article deleted, so why don't you come clean and be honest about what you're real gripe with her is? Robman94 (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did a lot of work for the truth. WP:BLP Read or re-read what is here. I am curious how you have that weird scanned pic too! More of the truth according to who? Somebody said all "records companies are evil”? That"s what really happened? thanks again 2605:A000:1303:4143:945E:B1E8:E72A:7EF9 (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The promo photo you pictured Robman94 is somewhat distorted. From what I can read it isn't the band Stealin' Horses. It has the names of the lady players. That helps make the case; "did't play with Stealin' Horses". WP:BLPNOTE The sources are not reliable. 64.134.166.188 (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— 64.134.166.188 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - A truly notable person WP:BLP: Elizabeth McQueen ,vocalist, has no wikipedia article. She plays great guitar and sang lead for Asleep at the Wheel for eight years. Won a Grammy Award for Sitting on Top of the World with Willie Nelson . She does a radio show on KTUX Austin every Saturday morning. You’d learn a lot to listen! Quit touring for their kids! Remarkable Person! 64.134.166.188 (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 14:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Adequate indicia of notability as a musician. Montanabw^(talk) 18:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The articles that are supporting comments are faux interviews in unreliable non-published online page. Failed. 66.80.125.178 (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— 66.80.125.178 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic, except for vandalism edits which have been reverted.

Keep, despite the efforts of the SPA editors and IP's, clearly meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Onel5969 With all due respect. WP:NEXIST. Where did you verify that she played with Stealin' Horses? Her Interviews? 69.61.204.118 (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Meets WP:CSD WP:BLP see: Reliable sources 69.61.204.118 (talk) 00:50, 20 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) 19:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coflation

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

Promotional article about a neologism. It has received some mention in the press, for example https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/welcome-to-coflation-era-as-world-economies-diverge/article4390031/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&. That article describes coflation as the simultaneous occurrence of deflation in developed markets and inflation in emerging markets, not a "construct explored by fiduciaries and planners, Tom Sedoric and Casey Snyder". Note that the Author has the username Sedoric. Mduvekot (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - your choice of WP:DICDEF, WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:NEO. Bearian (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 14:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete as promotional and neologism. Searches produce a surprising number of hits, but scattered all over the place (with many apparent typos for conflation), but nothing of substance for this particular idea. Mangoe (talk) 16:57, 12 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 redirect to Green Wing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guyball

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

This fictitious sport is a minor plot element within a TV sitcom. It has no notability outside the show, and TBH very little even within it, being essentially mentioned only in passing. I originally redirected it as part of a drive to trim an excessive amount of Green Wing-related content (I hesitate to say cruft) which had existed since 2006, but another user reverted the move, pointing out that this particular article is a GA (something I have to confess I hadn't noticed, and TBH I'm really surprised it was ever made one given that it is sourced almost entirely to primary sources and demonstrates no real world notability) and saying it should be brought to AfD instead. So here it is...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Green Wing. The only WP:RS reference I could find was from the Independent with someone noting it wasn't included in a list of top ten fictional games because he hadn't heard of it until then.[26] I really don't see the slightest evidence of notability even compared to proper sports like Calvinball (which doesn't have an article either). --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Green Wing as that appears to be an appropriate target for this article. Aoba47 (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 14:15, 12 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic XML

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

Dicdef, sources do not appear to be reliable. Article managed to go nearly 8 years without a single edit, suggesting that this is not a notable topic. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a dictionary definition, lacks encyclopedic content. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 14:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are scattered uses of the term in the literature, e.g., [27], but I cannot find good secondary RS talking about this class of documents. I don't see a good redirect target either. Hence delete. --Mark viking (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable. DaveApter (talk) 16:38, 14 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. While there is uncertainty whether meeting NCRIC alone is sufficient or not (which should be clarified at NSPORTS), the consensus here clearly leans towards requiring meeting at least the GNG. Redirect was an option, but List of Hertfordshire County Cricket Club List A players is a redlink (List of Herefordshire County Cricket Club List A players, which was suggested as a target, is about another county (herT vs herE)). No objection obviously against a redirect if a suitable target is created. Fram (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Tom Cranston

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

PROD was removed.

Despite meeting WP:NCRIC, Mr. Cranston does not meet WP:GNG - I have been unable to locate sufficient in-depth sources that discuss him as a person. Per the FAQ on NSPORTS, passing the sport-specific notability guidelines is not a substitute for the GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per Greenbörg's suggestion, I would also be in favor of a merge to any suitable list. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as per WP:CRIN. We were having a considerable amount of debate a while back and we realized that the two notability guideline pages completely contradict each other, and such is the problem in this case. This is not a problem with WP:CRIN but with the policy makers.

In any case, the individual passes WP:CRIN and is therefore entitled to an article. If you delete this article, you might as well delete willy-nilly every single article of every single sportsman who has achieved a single top-level appearance. Bobo . 11:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I would be 100% on board with that, assuming that those people did not otherwise meet GNG. We are not intended to be an indiscriminate collection of stubs. There have been tens of thousands of cricket players throughout history. It is ridiculous to think that merely appearing in one top-level game confers to each of them an encyclopedic level of notability. If the only reference we have for someone (or something! this opinion is not limited to cricketers) is a single reference to a statistical database, we don't have enough information to support an article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - in justifying to me why he has sent this article to AfD, User:Premeditated Chaos glorifies his past history of spam vandalizing the site. Bobo . 16:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm female, thanks, and that wasn't vandalism, it was a good-faith attempt to create an article that satisfied our standards in 2003. It was rightfully deleted in 2006 because we tightened our notability criteria. The point I was actually attempting to make was about changing notability criteria. I appreciate your mud-slinging though, don't think I've ever been accused of vandalism before. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I've expanded the article a little bit, and there are a few other news reports, but they are all merely trivial coverage. It's pretty clear to me that this guy showed a little bit of promise in his teens, and Herts gave him a go for a few games. That he played a List A match (the first round of the C&G Trophy) is pretty inconsequential, it was clearly not at the top-level. His club cricket has been relatively ordinary; he doesn't even play in the highest division, and yet he isn't setting the world alight. I know tons of people around this level – they simply aren't notable, List A or no List A. Harrias ^talk 19:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please forgive me as my current level of activity on WP is limited by outside circumstances. "Gave him a go for a few games" is not the issue. The issue is about judging the inclusion of an article based on existing criteria. If people are unwilling to do that, then may I suggest they suggest new, and consistent, criteria, by which to judge an article about a first-class cricketer? When an issue such as this comes up, there is always a lot of "I don't like it", but very little discussion about how to fix things. Suggestions please as to how these criteria should be changed. Bobo . 07:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is based on our guidelines, without any element of "I don't like it" at all. WP:NSPORTS and it's subpages, such as WP:CRIN are designed to establish whether a player "is likely to meet the general notability guideline" (my emphasis). WP:N, often cited as disagreeing with this, actually states that "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list." In this case, Cranston is already included as a subject of List of Herefordshire County Cricket Club List A players. WP:CRIN and WP:NSPORTS suggest that he might be notable enough for his own article, but in the face of the evidence provided by the sources, I suggest that he is not, as laid out above. I have no issue at all with where we set the bar in WP:CRIN: I think that one first-class, List A or Twenty20 match is a fair line to suggest that a player might be notable, but it is a guide, nothing more than that. Harrias ^talk 08:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it shouldn't be hard to verify that a modern player meets WP:GNG. If it's proven they don't meet WP:GNG, the article should be deleted. Hack (talk) 04:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - but this is precisely where the confusion lies and where we need to sort out before randomly sending articles we dislike to AfD just for banter purposes. The last time an article which met WP:CRIC was sent for deletion, we pointed out (I forget by whom and where) that the two main sources of decisions about what to do when an article clearly meets guidelines, completely contradict each other.

However, I stand by my previous comment. The fact that we're accepting the judgment of a Wikipedia vandal in what should and shouldn't be allowed on the site is... suspicious, to say the least. Bobo . 04:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's the second time you've called me a vandal on this AfD and I insist you strike your unwarranted personal attack. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice. Do you wish for me to post the link again? I shouldn't have to... especially given as I don't remove material from my talk page...

I would be interested in seeing you cite what you believe was the appropriate notability requirement at the time, given as you are questioning whether an article which the community has collaborated on clearly meets notability requirements... and that you state that you believe your article met notabliity requirements. Bobo . 05:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobo192:, Premeditated Chaos created a page, which at the time she felt met the notability requirements. It's worth mentioning that back in 2003, there basically weren't anything like the structured notability criteria we have now. This is how the Notability page itself looked in 2005. In her time on Wikipedia, Premeditated Chaos has had only one of her mainspace created pages deleted; you have had seven mainspace pages deleted; from this, do we draw that you are seven times as much of a vandal? Or rather, than you have both been working to create an encyclopaedia, and a couple of times created articles that were later found not to be suitable? Based on the fact that it is clearly the latter, please retract your personal attack. Harrias ^talk 07:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. In fact, I have had more than seven of my articles deleted, but I'm interested in which seven you are referring to. Some of them were Scottish footballers for Alloa Athletic, prior to my being aware that only the top two Scottish leagues were considered notable enough for the site. Admittedly I forget why I added Abbas Jawad - perhaps he was in a squad list or similar and I added every name from that squad list without checking their prior history? Not sure. Once again, I accept that this was deleted. I suspect the same was true of Shameel Kazmi... Ryan Watkins was mis-redirected at some point, the subject was changed, and the article was deleted on those grounds. Joachim Alda and Franz Alexius was part of a project of mine to translate as many missing articles from de.wiki as possible - I must have overlooked their individual notability as per en.wiki guidelines. Hold my hands up to that one. Adrian Pelka I had no idea about to be honest. Again, I had listed a group of footballers from de.wiki and was in a process of translating. Nine further Scottish footballers as I was once again unaware that the notability requirements differed from those of English football... nine Belgian cricketers as I was once again finishing a list from what was, at the time, the second column on CA. One cricket article which was accidentally mistyped, redirected and then deleted as an RfD, one further Scottish footballer, and one cricketer who once again was a redlink in a list that I was filling in and which I now know does not fit WP:CRIC.

In other words, 99 percent of what I was doing was misplaced completionism! Which, apparently, is the problem here..! Bobo . 10:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At some point we will have to go through articles such as 2003 Youth Asia Cup and remove redlinks of cricketers who don't meet WP:CRIC requirements. That would clean up the possibility of this happening in the future. Bobo . 10:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And while you're here, why don't you explain what you mean by given as I don't remove material from my talk page...? Are you suggesting that I edited our conversation on my talk page, because if that's the case I'd love for you to show me the diff where I did that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I said nothing of the sort. You created an article which to me looks like a bona fide CSD G1. Something bored schoolchildren do as a laugh when they think their teacher's back is turned in ICT lessons. Bobo . 10:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty simple proposition. He's either been the subject of significant coverage in reliable or he hasn't. The cricket notability guideline is used as a guide to gauge whether a player has received such coverage. The nominator is making the case that Cranston fails the general notability guideline. Hack (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for whether he fails GNG, this is precisely the point I've been making. We have discussed, on AfDs such as this, contradictory information about whether an article which already meets individual project notability criteria needs to meet GNG or not. This is where the confusion lies. Which, to me, completely invalidates GNG. Bright-line notability requirements are the only way to achieve true NPOV. Bobo . 10:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if you are claiming that we are focusing on a "single reference" to a statistical database, any single person who knows anything about cricket reading this page could just as easily supply a second. Bobo . 05:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it seems odd to me that no matter how many times we come upon cricket articles which are acceptable for Wikipedia, not a single time have we ever changed our perspective on what does, and doesn't, qualify a first-class or List A cricketer for inclusion. Valid suggestions please as to ways we can alter our inclusion criteria. Bobo . 05:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please forgive so many comments in a single line. Just providing questions for participants to answer while I'm still within reach of a computer. I don't see where the conflict is here with GNG. :"Significant", yep. The biggest online cricket database on the Internet. "Reliable", yep. We've proven this many times that CA and CI are independently run organizations which compile stats (which don't always agree with each other), which proves that one doesn't simply rely on the other for "stealing" stats. "Sources". Yep. No explanation. "Independent of the subject". No explanation needed.

The question about whether the word "sources" (plural) is the issue has been touched upon before, and as I've said already, this is easily rectifiable. Bobo . 06:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, no evidence article subject has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. The reliable sources provided prove that the subject passes, narrowly, the requirements of WP:NSPORTS however this is not significant coverage per WP:SPORTSBASIC, being made up of Routine game coverage. Subject-specific notability guidelines are designed to provide a guide as to whether a subject might pass WP:GNG. This is useful for older topics when access to reliable sources may not have been readily available however this is a modern sportsman whose career is currently underway. The fact that significant coverage can not be found for a contemporary sportsman suggests that the subject is not notable. Hack (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Andy Armstrong, Alan Bell, Stuart Boon, John Cundle, Christopher Debenham, Neil Gladwin, David Hughes, Nigel Ilott, Richard Jerome, Ronnie Kotkamp, Andy Lewis, Jamie Murch, Tom Pearman, Tony Skeggs, Chris Thomas, Neil Vartan, Matthew Walshe, Lawrence Wright. All cricketers, just for Hertfordshire, who have made a single List A cricketing appearance. Feel free to AfD these too - it would be hypocritical not to, right? I'll be glad to make lists for other teams if you wish... Bobo . 18:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - an as-yet unquoted guideline: "A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." (WP:SPORTSPERSON, my emphasis). Perhaps this is the source I intended to mention when I said that there was contradictory information as to whether sportspeople automatically bypassed GNG... Courtesy ping to @Premeditated Chaos:, @Harrias:, @Hack:. My fault for not seeking this out before. My personal belief is that this contradictory information completely invalidates WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSPERSON equally. My on-wiki time is currently limited by outside forces. Bobo. 03:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I see absolutely no contradiction. Indeed, if we were talking about a cricketer from the 1960s or 1890s, I would be fully behind WP:CRIN based upon this. However, this is a player from the 2000s, during the internet age. We have no need to presume anything. If there was going to be significant coverage, we should be able to see it. Indeed, we can see enough information to build up a decent profile of the player. I have included in the article all that I have been able to find, and made further conclusions above. When we had no other information, we could look and think it was likely that there was "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". However, we have now looked and discovered that there isn't. Harrias ^talk 06:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I see the word "presumed" as the biggest weasel word in this entire conversation, as it is based on nothing more or less than personal opinion. Which, thankfully, isn't the fault of either one of us, because it is present in an (incredibly woolly and, as we are gradually learning, practically inapplicable) guideline. Saying that you apply different standards to a player of the 1960s-80s to one of the 2000s is, in itself, admitting time-bias - which, we both have to admit, is going to happen with every single player before the introduction of the Internet age. Surely, in this case, we are questioning the wrong player from the wrong era. Bobo . 08:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability guideline is WP:N. WP:GNG is but one of the ways to satisfy WP:N. The claims at WP:NSPORTS that WP:GNG is required even when the NSPORTS criteria are met, are problematic; but the controlling authority is WP:N, which says that WP:NSPORTS is an alternate to WP:GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG clearly lacks significant coverage in reliable sources.Further the subject has played just 1 List A cricket match and scored 18 runs which is an insignificant contribution and is 33 years and not clear if still plays cricket.He comprehensively fails WP:GNG through may scrape WP:CRIN on basis of the one match.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of argument, not all of which is about the article, perhaps the issues to do with policy have been discussed and some proper debate can happen?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 13:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - to you, Pharaoh, it may seem "insignificant", but as per WP:CRIN guidelines that is enough for an article. Please feel free to suggest, discuss, and request implementation of the criteria you wish to measure cricket articles by. Saying "it is insignificant" is meaningless if you don't suggest what you would believe to *be* significant.... Bobo . 17:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - you are right, @Aguyintobooks:, thank you. This debate goes deeper than this article and needs looking at significantly outside of this AfD. Bobo . 17:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:GNG. A single game and a listing in a statistical database are insufficient to show notability. I could support a merge to a suitable list article, if there is one. Reyk _YO! 17:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe we are working on the basis of two completely contradictory guidelines, WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSPERSON. GNG is ridiculously woolly and inspecific when we are working purely on a binary decision. Bobo . 18:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Reyk:, how many games would you like to see a player achieve before you considered him "sufficiently" notable? This is precisely the question which needs answering. A criticism of a guideline without a workable solution from the criticizer is meaningless. Bobo . 18:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to every single comment at an AfD and pinging editors insisting they justify their reasoning to you in detail verges on bludgeoning. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. If we weren't trying to justify answers to questions about articles which clearly pass notability guidelines I probably wouldn't. I'm merely attempting to provide valid discussion points about implementation of notability criteria, precisely as Aguyintobooks suggested we do, and precisely what some people are ignoring. If you really want to make some attempt to alter notability criteria, here and now is not the time or place. Bobo . 23:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. If I wasn't convinced by the badgering of previous participants, I certainly won't change my mind at more badgering directed at me. Reyk _YO! 05:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One more and I'm done. Seriously. Act like children, get treated like children. It's simple. A, I didn't start the "badgering", I was thanking a user for making me look at a specific guideline which I doubt many people have actually read before judging by this conversation, B, it's not "badgering", learn new words please, I was specifically thanking three people (at the same time) for making me look at criteria I'd honestly not read before, C, the fact that we are going against years'-worth of criteria which we have continuously, boringly defended to the point of driving people insane, is hypocritical to levels I've never seen here before, D, not a single person who has ever voted "delete" on a player with a single first-class appearance has ever said, "but this is a viable, alternate, NPOV solution to years and years of notability criteria which we have stuck to". End of the day, this is a conversation which needs to take place somewhere completely other than here. By more people than have participated here.

For what it's worth. I'm sorry. I have an explanation for my frustration but this is the last place anyone wants to hear it. I refuse to make excuses. Accept my apology or not. I'm done. Bobo . 07:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The arguments for deletion are unconvincing and I do not accept that there has been any downgrade of WP:SPORTS vis-a-vis GNG. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2002_Cheltenham_&_Gloucester_Trophy#First_round. He was part of notable event with any doubt but scoring only 18 runs in your only List A match is not enough to be part of multiple non-trivial coverage. Similarly, we don't create article on everyone who was part of the cast of a notable film. Instead, we have article when he/she has done major role in multiple films. Secondly, we don't have article for individual who was part of notable event like terrorist attacks. Instead, we redirect them to the event for which they were notable. I suggest we should do this for modern cricketers. Redirecting and adding categories to the entry will be better than deleting because afterall he passes WP:CRIN. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Premeditated Chaos:, @Bobo192:, @Hack:, @Pharaoh of the Wizards:, @Harrias:, @Reyk: I'm against deletion of any cricketer bio which passes WP:CRIN. Redirecting to better target for such cases will be better for the project. We will keep his name in the list such as List of Herefordshire County Cricket Club List A players which he deserves rather deletion altogether. I think this could be good starting point to sort out notability related issues of modern cricketer. Calling for deletion will not solve issues mentioned. We generally redirect Playboy Playmates to the list for which they are notable. For example, Michelle McLaughlin is redirected to List of Playboy Playmates of 2008. They all are one line biographies. So, doing something like that will be useful for the project. I hope other who voted delete will understand the problem. Any good suggestion will be welcomed. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've said, I'm in favour of presenting information like this in a suitable list. When an article on a (presumably) living person contains only statistical, rather than biographical, information it generally fails WP:GNG and so it is best to present it in statistical form alongside other similar statistics. Inflating raw stats into prose often tempts the writer to add more than is actually in the source. Reyk _YO! 13:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Reyk - are you wondering right now why I'm not asking you to stop badgering a participant in an AfD? Because I have better things to do like make Wikipedia a better place instead of having circular arguments like this. Don't criticize me for something and then commit it yourself. That entirely invalidates your position. Bobo. 17:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - It isn't badgering if Greenbörg specifically pings me asking for my opinion. Reyk _YO! 17:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just like it wasn't badgering when I pinged people specifically asking for their opinion? Oops... that makes your comment conclusively invalid. Please stop. Bobo . 17:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        No, if you ping a bunch of people you may be badgering, particularly if you comment frequently and repetitively. If I respond to a ping, such as Greenboerg's, I am answering a request for comment in good faith. My opinion has been asked for; the badgerer's generally hasn't been. Do you understand the difference? You appear to be trying to provoke me with sarcasm and false accusations of hypocrisy. If so, you are wasting your time. It won't work. Reyk _YO! 17:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        "May be badgering". What an embarrassing climbdown. Your opinion is invalidated. Thank you. I was pinging so that people knew I had responded to them. For exactly the same reason everyone pings everyone about everything. Bobo . 17:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        The reason what you were doing was badgering is that you were only saying to me the same things you'd already said to every other delete voter in the discussion. There was no need to say it, and certainly no need to ping anyone about it. That definitely is badgering: if your replies to others failed to convince me when I read through the AfD, repeating the same things to me won't do the trick either. Now please stop these kindergarten attempts at point scoring. Reyk _YO! 18:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        That is the single most blatant lie in this entire discussion. You said that a single game was not good enough, I asked you how many games were good enough. You failed to respond, therefore you have no opinion. I'm still happy to read an answer if you are prepared to provide one. I doubt it though, Bobo . 18:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        On a (marginally) less disturbingly petty note, that kind of proves that a single game is the one and only reasonable and rational line in the sand. Bobo . 18:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - you contradicted yourself within your first two sentences. Keep or merge? Bobo . 17:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just compared the article as it was when deletion was asked for and the way it is now. This got sent to AfD for two reasons, because it was vandalized in its "sent to AfD" state (bolded for clarification) and because there was no infobox. The article wouldn't have been sent for deletion if it were not vandalized and if it had had an infobox... because it would have looked prettier. And yet we are apparently against raw stats articles. Bobo . 17:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG. Meeting NSPORT is not an alternative to meeting GNG; it merely means there's a good reason to think that an athlete does meet GNG when sources not in the article (or not easily available online) are taken into consideration. In this case, even the keep voters haven't argued that this presumption is actually right in this specific case.
The GNG-NSPORT relationship has been discussed ad nauseam, including quite recently in this very long VPP discussion where the consensus on this was affirmed:

The first theme developed a strong consensus that the GNG is the controlling guideline, while the criteria at NSPORT are useful tools to try to quickly determine the likelihood of an article meeting the GNG. [...]

There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion.

As noted by the nominator, this is even in WP:NSPORT's own FAQ:

Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline?

A2: No, the subject must still eventually meet the general notability guideline.

Sideways713 (talk) 02:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - wow, what a lengthy, and for the most part, civil discussion. With good points on both sides. Sideways713 makes a very coherent argument however, and I'll have to agree with that reasoning, somewhat (hence the "weak"). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NCRIC. I have stated on a RfC somewhere else that the reason WikiProject N standards are superior to the GNG, even if more inclusive, is because the GNG is way too General for the specifics of life. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete--Echo Onel.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 06:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect – I was evaluating this discussion in a closing/relisting role, when I realised that discussion is probably too controversial for even a non-admin relisting, let alone a full NAC. I also realised that I was opinionated on the discussion. For most of my reading of the discussion I was swinging towards 'keep'—which is my starting viewpoint for all AfDs (except my nominations)—due to the vast number of policies cited by Bobo192 which state that the general notability guideline does not have to be met for WP:NSPORTS to apply in practice. In general I lean towards that argument, because—as stated above by L3X1—GNG is just too general for specific areas of content. But that's not policy.

However, reading later on in the discussion, I saw Sideways713's argument above that pointed to this heavily participated village pump discussion. When it was happening I had noticed it was there, but didn't seem to be around for the closure. As it is the single most recent consensus on the notability of sport bios, I feel obliged to go with the result of the discussion: NSPORTS does not supersede GNG. This really does need to be reflected on sport guideline pages, though, as this can seriously mislead people. The 'weak' is rather because that closure has not been linked or obeyed much, and is not in common use. The redirect should happen as per WP:ATD-R. Sorry for having to make this argument quite lengthy. J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 07:52, 20 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trouvère Quartet

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

Fails WP:NBAND. DrStrauss talk 22:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional search links in Japanese: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) The Google News search, in particular, offers some promise, though I'm unfamiliar with Japanese so I don't have a solid opinion at this time. Mz7 (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  14:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 13:07, 12 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 as G5. - Bilby (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon L. Maddox

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

I think there is a claim of notability here, but convincing I do not find it. Sources are hardly convincing. Medium sized fish in small pond. TheLongTone (talk) 13:04, 12 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 merge to Great Mosque of Kufa. Unanimous consensus.IranianNationalist is strongly cautioned against making unsubstantiated personal attacks. (non-admin closure)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon gate

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

The main concern is Wikipedia:Notability, which is not demonstrated. The article is based on Bihar al-Anwar, a WP:PRIMARY that contains probably millions of hadith. Pahlevun (talk) 12:36, 12 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 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Great Mosque of Kufa, I cannot see why the door of this mosque needs its own article, especially considering the small size of the main article. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 14:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because due to the Islamic zealotry it was a controversial to mention a reliable hilarious Hadith in the main article so I presented it in a separate article to stay moderated just like the Quran and Criticism of Quran or Jesus but the official Shiite sources below are defending the Hadith and they are not rejecting it. Now I called the Hadith as the background of the name of the Dragon gate in the main article. --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 15:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Agree with above.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Just one short narration that provides some sort of information about the gate does not satisfy the "significant coverage" required by GNG. Additionally, such narrations or hadiths are not to be considered reliable sources per WP:ISLAMOR. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but keeping the Hadith (during the merge) because it has reliable sources including official website of the Mosque and many more other official Shiite clerical sources (~~WP:ISLAM~~ WP:MOSISLAM) or news agencies :
1. https://web.archive.org/web/20130919075523/http://www.masjed-alkufa.net/news.php?readmore=203
2. https://www.imamhussain.org/persian/ahlulbayt-55/19608 (https://web.archive.org/save/https://www.imamhussain.org/persian/ahlulbayt-55/19608) (Imam Husayn Shrine)
3. https://www.islamquest.net/fa/archive/question/fa77393 (secondary by a high ranked clergy fa:مهدی هادوی تهرانی from Assembly of Experts) source for Tehrani+islamquest.net archive (guarantee)
4. hawza : http://www.hawzah.net/fa/Magazine/View/3301/5343/50193/اماکن-زیارتی-منتسب-به-امام-زمان-(عجل-الله-تعالی-فرجه-الشریف)-در-ایران-و-جهان-(3)
5. الخرائج و الجرائج، ج 1، ص 189; الثاقب، ص 248; مدینة المعاجز، ج 1، ص 141
6. sibtayn
7. http://fa.wikishia.net/view/اعمال_مسجد_کوفه

--IranianNationalist (Welcome) 15:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

There is nothing related to the WP:Primary but it is based on the secondary source of the official website of the Mosque : باب الثعبان هذا الاسم الذي حاول بنو أمية ومن تلاهم تغييره ولم يستطيعوا و بقي رمزا لمسجد الكوفة ومنقبة من مناقب الإمام علي (عليه السلام) also another source of a ISNA : تو دستگير شو اي خضر پي خجسته.
So @Pahlevun I have to remind : Wiki is not WP:CENSORed. --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 07:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IranianNationalist: The official website for the mosque is not independent to establish notability, and ISNA is just a trivia, mentioning then name. This article is a coatrack and content fork and should be deleted. Pahlevun (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability doesn't mean any one (in the world) knows that thing. For example how many people know The Book of Law ? But it is a fact some thing clearly exists. The Dragon Gate (باب الثعبان) is something clearly exists and has a clear background and you just censoring the background... from the wiki articles.

+WP:NNC:"Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article" --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Failing to meet the Wikipedia:Notability criterias is a reason for deletion. Pahlevun (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Hi Diannaa, Can you help or ping some one here to present a 3rd opinion? Thanks.
I think Pahlevun is censoring the official website of the Kufa mosque here :

@Pahlevun : Again, the official website of the mosque is not a Primary source. Notability doesn't mean any one (in the world) knows that thing. For example how many people know The Book of Law ? But it is a fact that the film clearly exists. The Dragon Gate (باب الثعبان) is something clearly exists and has a clear background and you are censoring the background from the wiki articles(@Pahlevun).--IranianNationalist (Welcome) 20:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One clear sign of censorship is the Hadith itself in the Arabic-lang from the mosque website which is still in the article nominated for merging the content. "أمير المؤمنين الأمام علي بن أبي طالب (عليه السلام) يخطب على منبره في مسجد الكوفة , إذ ظهر ثعبان من جانب المنبر وجعل يجر ويرقى حتى دنا من أمير المؤمنين (عليه السلام) , فارتاع الناس من ذلك وهمّوا أن يدفعوه عن الإمام (عليه السلام), فقام الثعبان ثم انحنى الإمام على الثعبان حتى التقم الثعبان إذنه , فتحيّّر الناس من ذلك , وهو يحدثه فسمع من كان قريبا كلام الثعبان ثم زال عن مكانه , وأمير المؤمنين (عليه السلام) جعل يحرّك شفتيه , والثعبان كالمصغي إليه , ثم سار الثعبان وخرج , وعاد أمير المؤمنين (عليه السلام) إلى خطبته وأتمها , فلما فرغ نزل من المنبر فاجتمع إليه الناس يسألونه عن حال الثعبان والأعجوبة فيه, فقال( عليه السلام) : ليس ذلك كما ظننتم , وإنما كان ذلك حاكما على الجن!! ,فالتبست عليه قضية وصعبت , فجاء ليستفهمها فاهمته إياها , فدعا لي بالخير وانصرف." But Pahlevun censors the English translation of the Hadith. --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 20:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HyperGaruda: Hi, HyperGaruda you had a translation edit in the article and you are familiar to Arabic language please check whether the Hadith translation is same as the Hadith in the Mosque website source? --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 20:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some photos of the doorway + translation prove

Also the Official website is the secondary source and is referring to the Hadith of the Bihar al-Anwar EXACTLY (@Anyone : CAN'T YOU READ ARABIC? SEEK YOUR SELF THIS WAY) : Bihar al-Anwar (Bihār al-Anwār (Arabic: بحار الأنوار‎‎, meaning "Seas of Lights")) In the official website of the mosque :

https://web.archive.org/web/20130919075523/http://www.masjed-alkufa.net/news.php?readmore=203 (...متداول على السنة الناس , لما روي في البحار ومدينة المعاجز وغرر المناقب ,وسبب تسميته بباب الثعبان انه بينما كان...)

OR :

Google translate : https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20130919075523%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.masjed-alkufa.net%2Fnews.php%3Freadmore%3D203&edit-text=&act=url

--IranianNationalist (Welcome) 21:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do have to say that the English translation in the article is not the same as the original Arabic narration. For example, it says nowhere that the serpent/dragon kissed Ali's feet nor is anyone called Jaber ibn Sami' mentioned there. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." So the official website of something is not enough to establish notability.Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pahlevun is arguing that : "@IranianNationalist This is very interesting that when you wrote یه کم بخندیم :D به این منابع معتبر, you have confessed that the source is not reliable. Wikipedia is not your laughingstock."

I replied him differently that I laugh to many different things :D but I have another response for him here : Al-Masih ad-Dajjal current permalink

   Ali was reported to have said: His right eye will be punctured, and his left eye would be raised to his forehead and will be sparkling like a star. Only the believers will be able to read the word "Kafir" [disbeliever], inscribed in bold letters, on his forehead. There will be big mountains of smoke at both front and backsides of his caravan. People will anticipate food within those mountains, during the severe famine. All rivers, falling in his way, will become dry and he will call upon people in a loud voice, "O my friends come to me! I am your lord who has made your limbs and given you sustenance."[5]

If these Hadithes seem ridiculous to you (or me as I laugh) and you want to say these are false Hadithes it doesn't mean to censor them from Wikipedia because these Hadithes have a COMPLETELY HISTORIC BACKGROUND absolutely same as the myth of God or the Moses legend of the opening a way through the river if you don't believe it doesn't rationalize to censor these stories from wiki <----@Pahlevun: :)

@HyperGaruda: It has been said in here (https://www.imamhussain.org/persian/ahlulbayt-55/19608) : مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى وَ أَحْمَدُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحَسَنِ‏ عَنْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ بْنِ هَاشِمٍ عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ عُثْمَانَ عَنْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ بْنِ أَيُّوبَ عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ شِمْرٍ عَنْ جَابِرٍ عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ (ع) قَالَ: بَيْنَا أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ (ع) عَلَى الْمِنْبَرِ إِذْ أَقْبَلَ ثُعْبَانٌ مِنْ نَاحِيَةِ بَابٍ مِنْ أَبْوَابِ الْمَسْجِدِ فَهَمَّ النَّاسُ أَنْ يَقْتُلُوهُ فَأَرْسَلَ أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ (ع) أَنْ كُفُّوا فَكَفُّوا وَ أَقْبَلَ الثُّعْبَانُ يَنْسَابُ‏ حَتَّى انْتَهَى إِلَى الْمِنْبَرِ فَتَطَاوَلَ فَسَلَّمَ عَلَى أَمِيرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ (ع) فَأَشَارَ أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ (ع) إِلَيْهِ أَنْ يَقِفَ حَتَّى يَفْرُغَ مِنْ خُطْبَتِهِ وَ لَمَّا فَرَغَ مِنْ خُطْبَتِهِ أَقْبَلَ عَلَيْهِ فَقَالَ مَنْ أَنْتَ فَقَالَ عَمْرُو بْنُ عُثْمَانَ خَلِيفَتِكَ عَلَى الْجِنِّ وَ إِنَّ أَبِي مَاتَ وَ أَوْصَانِي أَنْ آتِيَكَ فَأَسْتَطْلِعَ رَأْيَكَ وَ قَدْ أَتَيْتُكَ يَا أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ فَمَا تَأْمُرُنِي بِهِ وَ مَا تَرَى فَقَالَ لَهُ أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ (ع) أُوصِيكَ بِتَقْوَى اللَّهِ وَ أَنْ تَنْصَرِفَ فَتَقُومَ مَقَامَ أَبِيكَ فِي الْجِنِّ فَإِنَّكَ خَلِيفَتِي عَلَيْهِمْ قَالَ فَوَدَّعَ عَمْرٌو أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ (ع) وَ انْصَرَفَ فَهُوَ خَلِيفَتُهُ عَلَى الْجِنِّ فَقُلْتُ لَهُ جُعِلْتُ فِدَاكَ فَيَأْتِيكَ عَمْرٌو وَ ذَاكَ الْوَاجِبُ عَلَيْهِ قَالَ نَعَمْ. And the Dragon crawled up to the rostrum and raised up and SAID Hello to the Amir al-momenin :D (no kiss, kiss is forbidden) anyway the fun part of the Hadith is completely in the historic sources and these secondary sources however in different ways. The kiss of feet is in the ISNA source in Persian language. --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 14:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: The independent source of another Shiite official website of Imam Hussain : https://www.imamhussain.org/persian/ahlulbayt-55/19608

Is this source OK?--IranianNationalist (Welcome) 14:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability, not only does it have to be independent (who is Imam Hussain?) it also must be an RS (So does this website fit our criteria for being an RS?).Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source of Al-Masih ad-Dajjal current permalink I reminded above is : Bilgrami, Sayed Tahir (2005). "6". Essence of Life, A translation of Ain al-Hayat by Allama Mohammad Baqir Majlisi. Qum: Ansarian Publications. p. 104.

@Slatersteven: Where is Qum? You are talking about the article title but the discussion is about the WP:PRIMARY and content censorship in these diffs :

I want to add a note, this user Pahlevun has a Persian name means "Hero" and this user has made no deletion polling in the Persian article. You probably ask yourself why? Because in Persian Wiki many people can read Persian and Arabic sources of this article and search for more online sources. Is it necessary for me to talk about censorship more? Is Wiki an Encyclopedia? Or a political war place? May be wonderful for the staffs in the Jimmy Wales office @Jimbo Wales:. --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 14:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about Pahlevun. So please address my questions, (who is Imam Hussain?) and (does this website fit our criteria for being an RS?).Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Imam Husayn Shrine I listed more reliable sources. If you can't read Persian or Arabic you can use google translate and search a few about باب الثعبان instead of giving help to the Islamic Republic regime of Iran censorship and Paradox of having double standard between Wiki En and Wiki Fa based on Persian talking ability. (If you don't know the source of Shiiticism started from Iran (Safavids)) --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 15:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well as you accept the merger this is not the place to discus what sources you have.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of providing excuse you can ask why Pahlevun said : "a WP:PRIMARY that contains probably millions of hadith". If he made this talk to discuss upon PRIMARY source so I WILL PROVIDE AND DEFEND the OFFICIAL SOURCE. I can see prejudices clearly in this talk :v --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 17:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked you to stop making PA's.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon or snake

@IranianNationalist: Where did you get the translation "Dragon" from? A thu’bān is a snake, while a dragon would be tanīn. No wonder nobody can find sources for "Dragon gate". I would suggest to retarget "Dragon gate" to Dragon Gate after stuff has been merged, as it is an incorrect and probably made up translation of Bāb al-Thu‘bān. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HyperGaruda: It is said as اژدها or dragon in Farsi language sources (reminding the Bihar al-Anwar was a product by Iranian Safavid dynasty). However snake or serpent(large snake like biblical evil almost means monster has similar meaning to Dragon in Farsi language) However snake or serpent are present in Farsi sources too.

https://www.islamquest.net/fa/archive/question/fa77393
But like other Arabic words Thoban has different meanings including hydra or 9 head snake-like monster : https://www.almaany.com/en/dict/ar-en/ثعبان
Anyway I'm agree with you to make the Dragon gate a redirect to the Dragon Gate to disambiguate.

--IranianNationalist (Welcome) 19:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Safavid or not, Bihar al-Anwar was originally written in Arabic like most religious literature back then and since the gate is located in Iraq, an Arabic-speaking country, it does not make sense to base translations on a detour from Arabic via Farsi to English. You should instead try to find translations from Arabic directly into English, such as the "Gate of the Snake" used in this source. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the Arabic word thu’bān, but one of the meanings of the Farsi word اژدها is a large snake according to the Dehkhoda Dictionary. Curiousity7919 (talk) 16:35, 17 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 procedural close. Other than the speedy deletion request (which has been denied) there is no valid rationale given for deletion (by either the nominator or subsequent !voters). Rashidi exists, and the content is backed up by reliable sources. NPASR if a new rationale is provided. Primefac (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rouzbeh Rashidi

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

Fake content NoakesPJ (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Rouzbeh Rashidi Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rouzbeh Rashidi[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 12:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are issues with this article (copy-paste content and questionable notability), but the nominator's two-word rationale is problematic: is "fake content" implying that the entire article is a hoax (which would not be the case, as basic verification is available, such as [28]), or that some content is fake (in which case it is a matter for normal editing rather than AfD)? I'm not sure a procedural close wouldn't be appropriate. AllyD (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Part of the article is a WP:COPYVIO, copyvio report. the rest is promotional and of no relevance. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 14:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correction. the whole article is COPYVIO, but from more than one source. I am going to CSD tag the article. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 15:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy declined - there is an old revision that has no copyright issues. I think some of the added content since then is also acceptable. Primefac (talk) 15:23, 12 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 as a copyvio. TLT had it right, page was a copyvio of http://crystalpalacefoundation.org.uk/about RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Palace Foundation

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable organisation. Appears to be mostly original research and I can find little independent coverage in reliable sources that give significant coverage. DrStrauss talk 11:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN organization, borderline promotion. And obnioudly either written by a member of copyvio. I lean towars the latter due to the truly appalling quality of the writing.TheLongTone (talk) 13:27, 12 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) 19:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plagues (Band)

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

not notable Rathfelder (talk) 10:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines(WP:BAND). Only source offered is a primary source(an interview transcript). It's hard with a generic term like "Plagues" to look for sources, but my search could find little. Would change my mind if secondary sources indicating notability are offered. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BAND. Local band signed to non-notable local record labels – I can't find any evidence that they have headlined any shows, they've just played as a support band and at various metal festivals. The article looks like it was written by a WP:SPA close to the band, as there are lots of unsourced details – there is no mention in the text of two of the "past members" of the band mentioned in the infobox or what their role was, nor the association with the "associated acts". Richard3120 (talk) 13:40, 12 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) 19:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katzenjammer Records

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

No evidence of notability. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article has been changed little in six years. It was tagged with a CSD A7 18 minutes after it was created, but it was removed, though I'm not clear on why(and the user who did it is now blocked). Does not seem to meet WP:ORG. My search could not find sources(only other entities with "Katzenjammer" in the name came up). 331dot (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:COMPANY and pretty much every other criterion (WP:ORGCRIT, etc.) for company notability. Non-notable local record label with about four non-notable bands on its roster (two of which feature a member of the band that founded the label) – it hasn't even released a single record since 2010, a fact made obvious by its own social media websites, which for the past few years have mostly consisted of posts promoting shows by other artists and digging up past interviews and promotions for its former record releases. The link in the article for the band "Dissymmetry" directs to an unrelated article about chemistry. Richard3120 (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - superior analysis by Richard3120 and 331dot. Non-notable label. No length of history, no roster of notable artists, no indication the label made any impact on musical culture. Aside from what makes record labels notable, fails WP:GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:29, 13 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) 19:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IRecover

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

Non-notable software article, was able to find absolutely zero coverage in the usual reliable sources, was able to find passing references in Google Books, but they likely refer to a different product with the same name. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom- probably- this does seem to have been non-notable per WP:PRODUCT, but there are admittedly other affaisr of the same name with stylistic differences between them: an addiction recovery centre in Palm Springs ([29]), and only touched upon in literature, which is insufficiently in-depth coverage being only passing mentions in manuals and tech-guides. — fortunavelut luna 09:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, with only one fairly low-quality independent ref. As above A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage; many of the results are for an unrelated database query language command. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PRODUCT.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:38, 17 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 speedied G7 author request. GoldenRing (talk) 10:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grigore Mihaela Alexandra

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

No demonstration of notability Roxy the dog. bark 07:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:33, 12 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) 19:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Rimer

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

Passing mention in some outlets, but nothing substantial enough to pass WP:BIO. Blackguard 07:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Also valid for BLPPROD now, since someone removed the only reference about him on the page. But I'm not sure if that is just going to disrupt this AfD. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 07:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with C'est n'est pas un Dave that now we're here, we might as well see it through. A WP:BEFORE search ([30]) indicates a lack of in-depth or persistent coverage in third-party reliable sources sufficient for the subject of this filing to pass the minimum requirements of WP:ANYBIO. — fortunavelut luna 09:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete. Article is completely unsourced, and claims nothing that would entitle him to an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of enough sourcing to clear the WP:GNG. For the record, while his brother Spandy Andy Rimer's article technically had actual sources in it, they were also far too weak — consisting almost entirely of primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage that wasn't substantively about him — to support how advertorialized its content was, and hence I've speedied it. Bearcat (talk) 20:59, 18 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 redirect to List of Looking episodes. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for Now

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

Article about an individual television episode, serving primarily as a plot summary and not demonstrating any significant real-world context for why it would require a standalone article separately from the existing List of Looking episodes. As always, every TV show that exists does not automatically get to spin off a separate article about each individual episode -- we use episode lists for this purpose, and only create dedicated articles about individual episodes in rarefied special cases, on the order of Ellen's "The Puppy Episode", that can show genuine context for why they need more than just a basic plot summary in an episode list. But what we've got here for real world context is "the episode was released to general acclaim", the end, and what we've got here for sourcing is not really coverage of the episode itself, but brief mentions of the episode in general overviews of the series, a non-notable YouTuber's recap video, and the cast and crew's own self-published audio commentary on the DVD boxset. These are not sources that properly establish that this episode needs a standalone article separately from the already-existing episode list. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. I disagree. There are many Wikipedia articles about specific episodes, and there are sources for this one, too:

I'd prefer to see this article developed, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plot recaps aren't enough to establish the standalone notability of an individual episode either — especially for a show that aired in the 2010s, when every single show that exists at all will be getting recapped on some pop culture website somewhere. Yes, there are "many" Wikipedia articles about specific episodes — namely, certain specific episodes that have notable real world context, qualifying them for special treatment different from the way we handle most television episodes. What's required for a television episode to qualify for its own dedicated article to be spun off from the episode is real-world context, along the lines of "The Puppy Episode" getting extensively covered as the single most important watershed moment in the entire history of LGBT representation on TV. (Wanna guess how many other episodes of Ellen besides "Puppy" actually have standalone articles separately from the episode list? Free hint: you'll be wrong if you guess any number greater than zero.) Bearcat (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well even if a standalone article is not appropriate at this time, we should just redirect to List of Looking episodes and not delete this page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The series it was connected to lasted two seasons and under HBO terms, didn't do well. This is a low-quality "current-day Family Guy episode type-what-I-see"-level recap which is poor in every manner; the plot, the 'production' section (nobody cares if an actor is making his first appearance on cable), and reception ('general acclaim' is a dreadful description of critical reaction). Nate • (chatter) 02:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Alonso Duralde is a respected film critic, and has written for many publications. The Young Turks are definitely notable; What the Flick is aired through their channel. I would also like to point Mrschimpf towards our civility policy—labelling other contributors' work as "poor", "dreadful", etc. is not helpful. Gertanis (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I apologize if I offended you, but the writing for a plot summary must be well-sourced and read well, and this did not to me; there's parentheticals identifying actors, which distracts from the summary (you've got the cast list in the main article, so readers can easily reference that), along with too many blue links for obvious items such as condos, LA and bachelor parties. "Many scenes were re-shot for the episode, as they were considered too sad." is a line I should not be reading in a Wikipedia article; why is it considered 'too sad'? Can you use better wording? Just on that alone I can re-write it as 'The original cut of the episode was considered too depressing to audiences, and scenes were re-shot in order to lighten the mood'. Why is Mr. Alvarez being on cable for the first time so important? It's an HBO show; that should be good enough, and you don't really need to point that out (as it was most of the cast's first time on cable or HBO). And 'general acclaim' is too vague to describe critical reaction; that could vary as much as 'there are issues with the show that keep it from being great', 'it was an OK show' to 'this was fine'. As for your sourcing, Duralde is a film critic; we usually look for television critics because they work the field all the time, where film critics are grading on a curve because they have different expectations for a television series than a film. TYT (like it or not) is also known more as a political show, with their arts criticism as on the side. Generally, we also prefer to have a written review to source; readers looking for more generally don't want to have to sit through a video (or here also, audio commentary for the episode from those involved in the work, which is a disallowed WP:PRIMARYSOURCE). Nate • (chatter) 21:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first article I've created of this kind, so maybe you should be a bit more polite. Unnecessary blue links and parentheticals are easily removed, and constitute no solid reason for deletion. Mr. Duralde is indeed a film critic, but not exclusively. He writes/speaks of both mediums, which is becoming more and more common, as they both pertain to the moving image. Primary sources are not disallowed on WP; autobiographies are often used in articles, for straightforward statements. Also, Ellen is a talkshow, not a narrative feature. You mention Family Guy: that show has WP articles for almost every episode, even some GAs. So why no articles for Looking? Gertanis (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, what gets an individual television episode into Wikipedia is not the mere fact that it's possible to source a plot summary to episode recaps and critical reviews of the series — what's required is real-world context for why the episode has its own independent importance as a separate topic from the series as a whole. You haven't shown any of that, however — you've just sourced a plot summary.

Also, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: the fact that some other unrelated show has separate articles for most or all of its episodes does not automatically mean every other show gets that too. It's possible that those other articles should be deleted too and it's just that nobody's tackled them yet, or it's possible that there are contextual reasons that you're missing as to why the two shows aren't actually equivalent in terms of episode notability or sourceability. (For example, the sheer depth of Star Trek fandom, the show's incalculable influence on pop culture and its gigantic body of literature all mean that it's possible to reliably source genuine real-world context, beyond just a plot summary, for virtually every episode of that series — yet it's not possible to do the same for the shortlived Canadian knockoff The Starlost, where the best we could ever actually do is just a plot summary.)

And incidentally, you need to familiarize yourself with the difference between Ellen, the 1990s sitcom that was actually raised as an example in this discussion, and The Ellen DeGeneres Show. They're two different shows; the 1990s one that had a historically important episode called "The Puppy Episode" was not a talk show, but a narrative sitcom. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 30 August 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)}}} 18:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not able to find coverage about this episode aside than the aforementioned expected coverage by virtue of it being the pilot of an HBO series. I agree that in this day and age pretty much every show is going to be covered in some form by some pop culture podcast or web site, but that does not make the episode worthy of its own article. Had this show made more of an impact on the cultural zeitgeist, my vote would be different. I don't think a redirect is warranted either. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:06, 11 September 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)}}} 06:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wonder why, per WP:ATD-R, redirecting to List of Looking episodes is unwarranted? Ready to be persuaded for sure. — fortunavelut luna 09:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's about focusing efforts where they would be more useful, and managing expectations. For the former, once it becomes standard policy to create redirects for every episode of every show, people will go out and do just that for their favorite shows. So rather than beef up plot summaries, for example, we'll just have more redirects. As far as managing expectations, some of these redirects may show up on disambiguation pages and even in articles as Wiki-links, yet clicking on them might cause disappointment when the occasional reader expects an episode's article as advertised, but lands on the series page instead. In this specific case, the lack of sources that prevent my support of a standalone article also suggests to me that there's not much that will trigger a search for this episode by title anyway, making all of this moot. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Looking episodes, as suggested above. I'm not seeing a lot of sources about why this episode itself is important enough to merit its own article, but I see no reason to not have the episode title go somewhere. 331dot (talk) 12:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The remarkable unlikelihood that anybody would ever actually expect it to exist and search for it, coupled with the fact that in that remarkably unlikely event the episode list would still come up in the search results anyway? Bearcat (talk) 05:14, 18 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 merge to Thomas Myles. and Kilcoole. A bold close; but, there being a clear consensus for a merge, the only question is- where to? The emergent opinion- based as much on lack of exoressed views as on those expressed- indicates that both the individual most noted for involvement in the event and the place it took place are deemed the most suitable tagets. Irish Volunteers and Easter Rising gained little traction, and Howth almost none at all. There are few strong arguments presented, but the strongest are- after a month of discussion- favouring Myles and / or Kilcoole. The boldness of this close, I suggest, lies ore in the and than the or. I say nothing about the original necessity in bringing an article to a deletion discussion which even the nominator favoured merging; for future reference, note we have WP:MERGE precisely for that. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 10:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kilcoole gun-running

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

Merge: with either Easter Rising and/or Thomas Myles and/or Kilcoole -- insufficiently notable in its own right. Stub created by Irish republican on a tear, determined to create articles and categories about anyone/anything connected to The Troubles. (I also will support a consensus to delete.) Quis separabit? 14:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep significant and has enough coverage Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insigificant. It's like having an article for any time a supply drop was sent to troops in the field. Not denying it happened, just not independently notable. Canterbury Tail talk 20:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with either Easter Rising and/or Thomas Myles and/or Kilcoole. It belongs within the context of those articles. Only if there's so much info on this that it would be undue should it be split off from those. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge somewhere, perhaps Irish Volunteers. I imagine we have more than one article about Irish Republican activity before the Easter Rising. Note that this all comes from one newspaper source. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect the incident is already mentioned at Howth gun-running and Thomas Myles. I think Myles is the best place to send a redirect, unless an article about gun-running during the troubles exists. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be sufficient consensus to redirect/merge somewhere but not about the target. Since there can only be one redirect target, which should it be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Howth gun-running (Maybe event change the title to Howth and Kilcoole gun-runnings?). There only seems to be recent coverage because of the festival thing or whatever, so I wouldn't call the news very reliable. But, it should be covered along with the Howth gun-running, as this gun-running was the backup plan in case the former went sour. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 19:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sigh. SoWhy was faced with four possible merge targets and didn't know what to do, so he asked for more input. Now we've got five possible merge targets. Hopefully, in another week of discussion we can reduce that to a single choice? Please, guys? Help us out here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Make up your mind, guys.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: - It looks like there is consensus to merge and no one seems to have a strong feeling for the destination for the redirect. From the proposals, can you suggest your first choice and we can see if there is any opposition. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smmurphy -- sorry for the delay -- I was trying to arrive at a decision. Between "Easter Rising and/or Thomas Myles and/or Kilcoole", I posit that Easter Rising might be the most appropriate. But if you have a better or more informed idea, let's chat. Yours, Quis separabit? 03:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitate to reiterate my !vote, but I preferr Myles as a good place to redirect someone looking for information on this incident, although I don't have a particularly well-informed idea. From a policy/content perspective, I don't think any material on this page would fit in the Easter Rising page, and so I wouldn't think merging/redirecting to that page would be useful. If you really think it would, I'm fine with it. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I hate fourth relists but no consensus wouldn't be appropriate due to there being no consensus among merge/redirect targets (No consensus results in keep), and there is far from a solid consensus in general. This is a situation where I ask myself: Is a plurality of consensus required or a majority, not relying on pure !vote count?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 06:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. Minor event that does not appear notable. Could be merged to some bigger article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:30, 12 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 no consensus. Definitely it's not a delete. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 05:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chakkarakadavu

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

No references available. Unremarkable location and unclear what is significant about it. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~. The article says the subject is a human settlement. If that can be verified, the subject would be notable per WP:GEOLAND. However, an initial search only finds that the local Catholic archdiocese notes it as the location of a church and a school. Census of India has no entry for this place. • Gene93k (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GEOLAND says that ...legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable emphasis in original, and this village would fail to be "legally recognized" based on the Census of India information. Lacking that, it fails to qualify for notability under WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GEOLAND as per being a populated, legally recognized place. Covered in the 1961 Census of India. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Office of the Registrar (1968). Census of India, 1961: Kerala. Census of India, 1961. Manager of Publications. p. 364. Retrieved September 4, 2017.

Keep. Satisfies GEOLAND per find by Northamerica1000. A Google Books search confirms that the village was recognized in the 1961 Census of India, and notability does not expire. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not very sure if using the 1961 census directly is a good idea here. Based on what I managed to find:
1. The preview on Google books only shows one match of the name in the index, but no other matches. We don't know any corresponding information about the place such as district and coordinates.
2. At the time of the 1961 census, the areas were not systematically named and the ward level census data published often used the nearest rough locality name. A census ward itself is not so much a populated place as it is a temporary administrative division. (Since 2001 however, the census carries actual geographical data with village names).
3. There is actually another place with a similar name "Chakkara kadavu" or "Chakkara kadavu pally" in Alappuzha. However, this article talks about a locality in Vypin (for which I am unable to find references beyond the Syro-Malabar church information). Would be good if someone can help to research this.--DreamLinker (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cherai. Please see my comment above for a background. I have now researched more and it seems to be a locality in Cherai. For example,
1. [31], the website of the Ernakulam rural police mentions "Chakkarakadavu Church, Cherai"
2. [32], the website of Kerala state educations shows "Chakkarakadavu St. George's LPS" in Cherai
3. [33] Article from manjooranfamily.com says "..sending them to a hideout at the remote, primitive, sleepy hamlet of Chakkarakadavu, later known as Cherai. This safe haven was at the newly-formed island of Vypin..." While this may not exactly be a reliable source like a book/newspaper, it nonetheless explains the local history. Based on the above, a redirect to Cherai seems to be a good option.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per arguments aboveEgaoblai (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Egaoblai. Did you mean to write a redirect? According to my arguments above I asked for a redirect because it is essentially another name for the same town.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:13, 11 September 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)}}} 05:45, 12 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. Can be userfied on request (though not by me). Sandstein 06:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YellowAnt (software)

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

Fails WP:GNG. No reputable sources discuss the topic and only briefly mention it as receiving start-up funding. — nihlus kryik (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PRODUCT, and per policy does not inherit the notability of it's creating company. Lack of sourcing is also an issue.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was created today. Brand new. Is it not worth leaving it for several weeks to see how it develops. scope_creep (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's borderline promotional and reliable sources aren't there. So, no, this one is not worth "waiting" on. — nihlus kryik (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - does not meet notability standards, as yet. but I note that the creator says it is "software, which is the only workflow automation tool that utilizes machine learning and Natural Language processing to create cross-application, cross-function automations." If this claim can be stood up in RS we have the making of notability. I don't like deleting potentially notable articles a few days after creation and moving to user space (suppressing the redirect, of course) will allow the creator a chance to develop it. Just Chilling (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Just Chilling: Curious, did you even look to see the potential sources yourself? — nihlus kryik (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Userfy It is a brand new article, and we are not deleting, that day after it was created, when it is still under construction. scope_creep (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Under construction doesn't matter if it will fail WP:PRODUCT each and every time. — nihlus kryik (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is the perview of the creating editor to create an in-depth article that can fulfill Wikipedia's criteria before they official create it. It is not our job as editors to refrain from criticizing an article because it was recently created. SamHolt6 (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Nihlus Kryik, You are trying to predict the future, why would you do that? In a years time, the product could be used by 10million people. You can't predict the future, so your statement: it will fail WP:PRODUCT each and every time. is baseless. All these startups bring new thinking and new technologies and WP needs them to stay salient in the tech sector article space. scope_creep (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In a years time, if there are 10 million users, then the article can be created. Now? No. You are the one trying to predict the future by preparing for any alternative. It will sit in userspace as a stale draft. — nihlus kryik (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Just Chilling: Encyclopedias do not speculate on future events, articles are written as if they have happened. See WP:CRYSTAL.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True, although that doesn't stop many editors predicting the future by ignoring WP:CRYSTAL and has become the de rigueur method of reporting supposed future events, which may or may not happen, which is besides the point for this. Keep for the moment. Deleting an article which is similar to 10's of 100s of articles of the same type on WP is not the way forward, particularly when it is brand new. scope_creep (talk) 09:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely promotional WP:SPIP and devoid of any indications of notability, fails WP:NCORP. Definitely WP:TOOSOON. Could have been speedily deleted. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it could not have been speedied - software is excluded from WP:A7. Just Chilling (talk) 01:34, 12 September 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)}}} 05:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a software start-up, describing their package's features and payment options. The provided references are poor (the two sentences in VCCircle being the best) and my searches are not finding better. The choices of technology or any potential for future sales are propositional and do not demonstrate achieved notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH if considered as a company (why does it link in the article to Atlassian?) and WP:NSOFT if considered as their product. AllyD (talk) 07:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What did the Pink Panther say when he stepped on an ant? Dead ant, dead ant, dead ant dead ant dead ant. Delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:33, 20 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. The article can be redirected or merged at editorial discretion. Mz7 (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Portakal Çiçeği Tower

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

A very short article with no sources; I doubt this claim passes WP:GNG. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tentatively. Because there should exist coverage in Turkish and/or English, because it is a very tall building, and per List of tallest buildings in Ankara it is the tallest building in Ankara, although the article itself says it is the third tallest. --do ncr am 04:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note, at worst this should be merged or redirected to its row in List of tallest buildings in Ankara; it should not be outright deleted. --do ncr am 04:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, can this AFD be closed "Speedy Keep", because there is no valid deletion rationale in the nomination. There is no assertion that wp:BEFORE has been attempted. Articles are not required to include sources, in fact. "I doubt this passes GNG" is not something worth others' time and effort to address, IMHO. --do ncr am 04:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge per Doncram. I researched a bit and there is some coverage about the building [34][35],[36] which confirms the little data we have in the article, and it must have gained some attention being so tall and modern. Not speaking Turkish, it's hard for me to assess reliability and depth of this coverage, but then the nominator didn't seem to either. No such user (talk) 21:07, 16 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. As a procedural matter, completing the AfD nomination for the unregistered user was not inappropriate. There is a consensus here that the subject of the article fails to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines at this time. Mz7 (talk) 03:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Widowmaker – Ian Easton

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

Article doesn't show notability of artist, has multiple issues goin back years and seems to mainly of been edited by a COI author. 194.28.127.54 (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)^{Copied from Talk:The Widowmaker – Ian Easton}[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:09, 12 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 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I.P. editors should not be making AFD nominations. Nor should other editors be enabling them. --do ncr am 04:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Balls, my dear fellow! Per WP:AFDHOWTO, "If you are unregistered, you should complete step I, note the justification for deletion on the article's talk page, then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process." Take care, — fortunavelut luna 08:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A WP:BEFORE search indicates a dearth of in-depth or persistent coverage in third-party, reliable sources sufficient to fail the most basic requirements of WP:ANYBIO. — fortunavelut luna 08:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. There's a nice article at Hit The Floor, but other than that, nada. Searched under his name, under The Widowmakers and under the combos thereof. Searching under his name was tedious, as there is a plethora of coverage of a defense expert of the same name. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Darkson ^{(Another fine mess!)} 13:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As nominator, not sure if I'm meant to vote, but just in case. 194.28.127.54 (talk) 23:50, 16 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) 19:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Booras

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

Not finding the necessary sources for this player in any language for WP:GNG other than WP:ROUTINE coverage. Below the standards for WP:NHOCKEY with only 3 AHL games and never winning any major awards in any of the leagues known to be covered. (Don't be fooled by the over 200 IHL games, it was for the United Hockey League when it was known as the IHL for a few seasons before ceasing operations.) He also apparently won an MVP in the MOL Liga but that is not one of the player notable leagues and I found only one other reference for it in the Bloomington paper, a team he one played for. The article interview with him is published by the Hungarian Ice Hockey association. Yosemiter (talk) 03:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The product of an editor who ultimately received a community ban on new article creation for many hundreds of NN article to bump up his page creation count. This is one of his stocks in trade: inflating non-qualifying leagues and awards, in open defiance of both consensus and the explicit text of the guidelines. Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 16:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence he meets either WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 23:31, 18 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) 19:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Hyra

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

Fails WP:Notability Mpen320 (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think he should have an article as there are polls that have him above 5% which allows him to be included on the election box. (I can`t believe that I forgot about the List of third party performances in United States elections I change my keep to a delete)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon698 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of third party performances in United States elections has numerous examples of candidates in statewide elections who exceeded 5% of the vote, but are not notable. Focus on Wyoming and Idaho especially. This applies to candidates of all third parties. It is also worth noting that he only exceeds 5% in two of the five polls listed in the article.Mpen320 (talk) 04:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Un-elected candidate for public office who does not have any other claim to notability and does not meet the primary notability criterion.--Tdl1060 (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Just being a candidate for office does not make an individual notable. AusLondonder (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being an as yet unelected candidate for political office is not a notability claim that gets somebody into Wikipedia in and of itself, polling above 5% is not a notability boost, and the article isn't referenced to even a fraction of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 06:35, 18 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

India–Moldova relations

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

fails WP:GNG. the relations are extremely minor in nature. no embassies, no agreements, no state visits, no significant migration. looking at the 2007 stats quoted, trade with Moldova made up 0.008% of India's total international trade. that is, if Moldova stopped trading , no one in India would notice. Some of the cited sources are of questionable reliability like [37], [38] and some sort of social networking site. LibStar (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This and other bilateral relations articles serve purpose of covering extent of bilateral relations. Here, the article documents that there is not a whole lot of relations, which is fine. I think perhaps wp:INHERENT governs. This is where stuff about any embassies is to be provided, in this case "Neither country has a resident ambassador. India has a non resident ambassador in Bucharest." --do ncr am 04:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

there is no inherent notability of bilateral relations, in fact 100s have been deleted. and you've curiously turned up at the same AfDs I nominate, I've never seen you at a bilateral AfD before, and I doubt you found this because you follow deletion sorting for Moldova or India. bilateral articles do not exist for simply listing embassies. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

well, this wasn't listed as a bilateral article, so doesn't explain how you "found" it... nor do you participate regularly in Moldova or India AfDs. LibStar (talk) 05:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whilst it doesn't cover a "whole lot" of relations, that doesn't mean it isn't an important page in itself. Not every oage needs to be chock full of data to be notable. the absence of data in cases like this is actually information in itself. PLus there is some valuable information contained in the articleEgaoblai (talk) 09:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the sourcing is poor and fails WP:GNG. we don't keep articles because WP:ITSUSEFUL. LibStar (talk) 09:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

can you show me even 5 sources that discuss these bilateral relations in depth. I bet you can't. LibStar (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any mention of this topic in reliable 3rd party sources that are independent of the subject, therefore this is non-notable. Must delete. Yilloslime ^T_C 19:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Delete: Not seeing evidence this meets WP:GNG. LibStar may be hawkish on these articles but they have been in the bilateral AfD wars for many many years, indeed I probably haven't commented on a bilateral relations AfD in years, but LibStar was there I am sure. Kind of like the Richard character in LOST, he will be here in 200 years, I expect. ("Delete! The Venus colony and Malta don't have any embassies or diplomats!") And we don't keep articles on every relation though that arguably might be easier, the standard is that each one has to be shown to be notable.

And since this article will probably be deleted, I just have to quote some of the well-meaning text here out of pure enjoyment: "Both countries have been found supporting each other at many international platforms like the United Nations through reciprocal support mechanism." I don't know what that means, but it sounds nice, like people holding open the door for each other at stores, here the international store of travel and commerce. Also: "There is a likeliness towards Indian dances in Moldovan community and some of the local groups also promote India's culture there." I wonder how many Indian restaurants there are in Moldova, by the way. "Some Moldovan visit India owing to their keen interest in yoga and spiritualism." Tourism is nice, and very good for world peace, but not so much for WP:GNG, I suppose. I also have no clue what this link [39] has to do with relations between India and Moldova other than perhaps "these two countries were mentioned on the SAME BLOGPOST once in 2013." Have a good Friday everyone.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's fairly likely that Indian diplomats can find Moldova on a map, and vice versa, but relations do not appear to extend much beyond that. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable & per above arguments. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 05:33, 19 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) 19:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aten Technology, Inc.

AfDs for this article:

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

Article unreferenced since 2012. Notability in doubt. Rhadow (talk) 01:12, 12 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 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:CORP. PR type news hits in gnews. LibStar (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Around half the article text is about the related ATEN International (which also contains an adequate coverage of the subject of this article) and IOGEAR (which redirects here). I am seeing nothing to indicate that a distinct article is appropriate. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:25, 17 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 per WP:SNOW. WP:G5 likely also would have applied, but there is consensus to delete regardless. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flickstree

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable run of the mill startup that fails a number of criteria. Note this article was deleted previously via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flickstree, but was recreated later by a now blocked sock of the original creator. The current article added some sources, but these do not address the reasons the article was previously deleted for. The article currently cites sources that fail WP:CORPDEPTH and mention Flickstree only in passing or as part of a list, only mention the prominent investors in the company, or concern other subjects entirely, all of which qualifies the article for failing WP:NCORP again. The fact that after 7 months (the previous afd was in January 2017) the article creator has not improved the page in any meaningful way speaks as to to the notability of the subject. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The recent press releases about a former cricketer investing in this start-up do not change my opinion in the previous AfD that there is no demonstrable encyclopaedic notability. Still fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage to date falls short of meeting WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. gongshow talk 01:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another promotional article by a disruptive sockfarm. Capitals00 (talk) 06:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can understand that Sourav Ganguly investing will attract some attention. But former sportspeople often invest in many companies. Unless there is something which independently sets this apart, I don't think this is notable. In the future is the company's video aggregator is used by many and generates news, it can be recreated.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:34, 17 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 redirect to Rooster Teeth#ScrewAttack. Anyone wanting to merge any content that is backed up by secondary sources can find it in the page history. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  23:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ScrewAttack

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NWEB. Tagged for notability since December 2015. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 01:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: They have been around a fairly long time and are part of Rooster Teeth in a fairly big way, along with the spin off Game Attack. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 02:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sysop: If delete is the choice, please dump the text into my sandbox if I can get it into a paragraph for Rooster Teeth. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 22:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the keep !vote above is based on the fact that ScrewAttack is part of something notable which doesn't confer notability because notability isn't inherited. A quick source search reveals nothing other than fancruft, self-published sources and affiliated media outlets. There are no independent, reliable reviews which give any indication of the article passing web notability standards. I am opposed to a merge because after looking at the article of the parent company, there is little sourced, encyclopedic content that can be merged. Perhaps a redirect may be the way to go but it's definitely not up to notability or verifiability standards. DrStrauss talk 13:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - To Rooster Teeth per the reasoning of nominator and DrStrauss. There is the potential issue of confusion with the term "screw attack", so an alternative would be to redirect to screw attack and make that a disambiguation page._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rooster Teeth without prejudice for/against a merge (though I'll note the same lack of reliable sourcing), per WP:GNG. --Izno (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't even debatable. ScrewAttack has 3.7 Million Youtube Subscribers with more than twenty videos that have more than 10 millions views. They are currently part of the Rooster Teeth family. Not even questionable that they fall within the definition of notability for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodychecker628 (talk • contribs)
- Bodychecker628, none of those things are in any of our policies. Go and find secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is little more than promotion. Delete--or merge, but without those lists of things. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DrStrauss, but a redirect would also work. ZettaComposer (talk) 00:19, 19 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Douglas

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

Fails WP:GNG. Better to move main points to Green Acres character list. User:EggOfReason (User talk:EggOfReason) 01:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The character, the leading role of Green Acres, has been well-covered by reliable sources, from Washington Post to CNN and various books.[40][41][42][43][44][45][46] The character described a symbolic and significant image of women in society, referred to by the likes of The New York Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Star etc.[47][48][49] In 2006, when the Green Acres theme song was sung by Donald Trump and Mullaly at the Emmys, both of them paid homage to Oliver (Lisa's other half) and Lisa Douglas in their respective roles.[50] The character's symbolic characterization of women has also been covered in various scholastic studies.[51][52][53][54][55][56][57] Thanks. Lourdes 03:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lourdes, a word of advice, to you or any other editor who knows enough about this character to make a judgment that the article should be kept. (and with the caveat that I know nothing about your editing record and was too lazy to see, perhaps you have vast experience and already know what I am about to say). The best, perhaps the only, way to demonstrate to other editors that this fictional character is notable, is to source the article to WP:SIGCOV of the character (not the actress, the character,) in WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:EggOfReason. I am grateful to any editor with the initiative to find unsourced arrticles and bring them here, but, do you think that there should also be an AfD for Oliver Wendell Douglas? I could see the argument for merging both of them the Douglas characters to the TV show page, but it seems odd to propose to merge the wife but not the husband.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sorry, I bit the bullet and looked for sourcing. Ran the obvious search on "lisa douglas" + "green acres" + feminist and immediately found WP:INDEPTH considerations in academic books on feminism : gBooks search here: [58].E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as a textbook example of WP:TNT: if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article. If you keep the article, then you're keeping something of no value until someone replaces it with something of value. Fully accepting that the character is notable, there must be a limit to WP:NOTCLEANUP. The article has zero sources, it consists of completely in-universe plot fragments, tagged as such since 2007 (!), along with pearls such as In one episode, Lisa asks a visitor drinking coffee if he'd like another cup. He says yes and she takes the cup, throws it out the window, gets another cup and then pours coffee into it. and In an episode, Lisa said that she did a good impression of Zsa Zsa Gabor, Eva Gabor's sister. Unless someone fulfills WP:The Heymann Standard in the meantime, this should be deleted and redirected appropriately, as it has 0 bytes of worthwhile content apart from the lead sentence. No such user (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No such user, E.M.Gregory, hello. Hope you are doing well. I've TNT'd the article and re-written it completely from scratch, adding all the sources. The only sources I've left out are the Google Scholar sources, which any one interested can add. Thanks. Lourdes 14:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN by User:Lourdes satisfies User:No such user's objections.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to keep, along with a big thanks for fixing this, Lourdes. No such user (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. Appreciated. Lourdes 15:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: This was a major character in a major sitcom of the period and the most famous role played by Eva Gabor. Repairs to the article cleaned it up and made it more encyclopedic. Clear keep. Montanabw^(talk) 19:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep major character on an extremely significant television series in the United States. The sourcing provided makes it absolutely clear that this is notable. Deletion is the wrong choice here. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Well, you know the old saying: you can lead a horse over the water, but you can't make him think." "What's the matter with you chickens? All of your eggs coming out with names on." "(after the credits have disappeared from the hotcakes and toast) The names just stay on long enough for their mothers to see them." "Oh yes. that's a pernundel (P-R-N-D-L). My husband has a pernundel on his car, too." "It could be worse, she could be allergic to diamonds." "This has been a Filmways presentation, darling."[59] StrayBolt (talk) 06:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Aoba47 (talk) 14:14, 13 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) 19:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JD Donzo

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

The subject fails WP:GNG and hasn't gained significant coverage in reliable sources. The references in the article are all unreliable. A Google search of the subject only shows mentions of him being featured on the remix of a Liberian song titled "Pot Not Balling". Being featured on a popular song or being nominated for an award doesn't make one notable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:35, 5 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) 00:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks coverage in reliable sources. Page's current references are far from reliable (ie. YouTube and Shazam). Meatsgains (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unfortunately, all I can see through a Google search are just passing mentions as a proponent of Hipco genre and one of the Liberian artists that needs to return home to further their career. Nothing to suggest significant coverage in reliable source. Concerning the awards, for now, I consider only Liberian Entertainment Awards seriously, and even at that he didn't even win the Hipco award, he was only nominated. Darreg (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable with improper sourcing. Fails WP:MUSIC. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 02:15, 16 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) 19:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Garcia (businessman)

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

Article only has routine coverage. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Edwardx (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:12, 10 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) 00:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no evidence of meeting our notabilit y standard. DGG ( talk ) 22:28, 17 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.