Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 June	14 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung SCH-B550

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

WP:MILL cellphone. Article has no references; notability has not been established.

Deprodded by one "SMSNG" with the edit summary "Samsung is notable" without addressing the concern in the PROD rationale. —Keφr 12:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a listing of every product which has ever been offered for sale by a major company. No reliable and independent sources with significant coverage of this product have been presented to support notability, and I did not find such in a brief search. Edison (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It exists but there doesn't seem to be much in the way of sourcing. Delete seems fine. --Izno (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That said, given that it does exist, maybe there's some scope for a List of Samsung B-series phones--it looks like the other phones in the series, and possibly the majority/entirety of Template:Samsung phones, could be or should be a list rather than individual, trivial or non-notable articles. --Izno (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting device, but not notable. Seems to have been available in Korea only. Shritwod (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite its existence, the device doesn't seem notable. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 01:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 12:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Altimetrik

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

Non-notable company. My own searching for sources found nothing that meets WP:RS. The best I found were a few articles in http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ which look like press releases (example: [1]).

Major contributors to this article are a bunch of WP:SPAs ([2], [3], [4]). -- RoySmith (talk) 12:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, typical startup company spam article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like a company brochure. No indication of notability. Associated with a sock farm. John Nagle (talk) 03:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous comments. Covansys Corporation has a longer history, but isn't much better than this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 18:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tess Whitehurst

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

After several declines at AfC, article was simply moved to mainspace. Other than trivial mentions, advertisements, and non-independent references, not a single in-depth source currently. And searches turned up virtually no coverage, let alone any in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on improving the article, but if the requirements for notability are "major reviews" that won't be one of the things I can change. There are no specific criteria for what is a "major review" and this author's work won't be reviewed by a major publication because of the nature of the topic. I didn't disregard the editors comments. The criteria being set for declining publication of the page wasn't justified. There are several other authors who have pages on Wikipedia who do not meet this requirement. She's published 10 books, most of which are best sellers in the category on Amazon.com. Her latest release was a #1 new release in it's category. She's won literary awards and had her work featured in Publisher' Weekly. I believe this argument for deletion is invalid and is directly related to the topics she writes about.

Can you please provide examples of what you are asking for to provide proof of notability?

Internetgal (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Internetgal, you can read a more detailed explanation of what's required for an author to qualify for a WP entry here: WP:NAUTHOR. Or, WP:NPERSON is another option. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found some reviews of her books: The Magic of Trees Review PW and Magical Fashionista Review PW. These can be used as Reliable sources, Internetgal. But I do wish I could find more than just Publishers Weekly. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm afraid I don't see the sources here to establish notability. For next time I can only advise making use of the guidance offered by AfC reviewers and editors at the Help Desk on how to meet the criteria for an entry in the encyclopedia. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in independent reliable sources. Also, book reviews are not sufficient per WP:NOTINHERITED. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, book reviews could be enough per WP:NCREATIVE #3 but that requires notice in multiple independent periodicals, which we unfortunately haven't been able to find. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nikka Silva

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

Fails WP:BIO. One newspaper article for what is basically a one event story, a sad story but without lasting notability. Fram (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTMEMORIAL. My condolences to Nikka's family and friends. Carrite (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sad as all h**, but yes, completely fails notability.★Trekker (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ducked Ape

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

Non-notable musician, fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG - TheMagnificentist 11:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage and none are in the article. SL93 (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet notability. Edit history of original poster indicates COI. --Lockley (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aek Chabhi Hai Padoss Mein

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

Unreferenced article that fails to credibly assert notability of the subject. The only valid link in this article is an archived link from 2007 from the TV station's website. A Google search identified some links from directory listings and a couple of links that may be LINKVIOs. I couldn't really find anything to establish notability. AussieLegend (✉) 11:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment - It seems that article could be broadened using Hindi news sources but it wasn't done just like most of other Hindi TV shows articles. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any sourcing for it, so in its current state it doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. So Why 07:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Karapetyan

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

Was deprodded without rationale. Only improvement was the addition of a single, non-independent source, currently still the only sourcing for this blp. Searches turned up zero in-depth coverage, so they fail WP:GNG, and nothing in the article suggests that they even approach passing WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Keep as a well-known Armenian singer. The article passes WP:MUSICBIO, as the singer won several competitions and has been a featured subject of a TV network. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfsDXD-0B_M this is one of his huge LIVE concerts. Harut (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC) Please note that editor is the article's creator.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand - truly deserving artist, I watched the video, what an incredible talent, wow. But the article requires expansion and more sources. Google search shows a good number of them. Eric was also one of the 5 Armenian jury members at the [Eurovision 2016 contest], which is also a good qualifying factor to pass WP:MUSICBIO. Fiddler11 03:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - would either of the above editors care to share any of the sources they've found to show notability? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To address Onel5969's question
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gudgudee (TV Series)

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

Recently created unreferenced article that fails to credibly assert notability of the subject AussieLegend (✉) 11:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no sourcing to demonstrate that the subject meets WP:TVSHOW. In fact, there's not even enough information presented at the article to determine if it was an episodic comedy series, or something more like a sketch comedy TV program... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. - TheMagnificentist 20:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jacobin (magazine). (non-admin closure) Lourdes 02:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catalyst (journal)

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Too soon." Article dePRODded with reason "Journal edited by notable editors, stable-mate of notable title, some external sourcing, worth keeping". However, external sourcing is not independent (magazine of publisher) and that the editors are notable or that the foundation publishes another notable journal is irrelevant. Journal has publishesd just one issue recently, too new to have become notable yet. In short, PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete New publication that fails WP:NJOURNALS. The references present are not WP:IS attesting to notability either. Maybe it'll become notable but right now it is way WP:TOOSOON. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jacobin (magazine). WP:TOOSOON Jacobin launched this more scholarly journal last month, May 2017. The argument for redirect is that Wikipedia can be a useful place to check out a journal you've never heard of. A newborn publication can be notable, of course, but only if it is hailed by multiple, reliable in-depth sources. Let's wish this one well and tuck it into bed with Jacobin until it has had a chance to grow up.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jacobin (magazine); definitely WP:TOOSOON, possibly WP:NOTINHERIT as well. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Amaq News Agency#History. If any editor wishes content from the redirected article, they can go to the history of the said article and select the contents from the previous versions of this article. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 04:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baraa Kadek

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

Know for being killed in an air-raid; There are not enough sources to prove that he doesn't fail WP:BIO1E. 2 of the sources do not mention him and he is identified as "one of the founders" of the agency. This article was prodded as needing more sources none were added. Domdeparis (talk) 10:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-OPPOSE He is not known for being killed in an air raid, but for having founded two news agencies. One of those news agencies is the world's primary source of information from ISIS. The Amaq News Agency has its own page and this supports notability of its primary founder. He is the primary founder of Amaq rather than merely 'one of the founders'. The article has 5 sources including two from the main English newswires (AP and Reuters), and three covering the subject in Arabic, Italian and French. The editor who proposed deletion has, I must point out, a history of excessive proposing of deletion for pages which other editors feel clearly meet notability requirements. Instead of adding more sources themselves, they propose deletion of a perfectly good article. Kuching7102 (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Please remember not to turn this discussion into a criticism of other editors as this is usually counter-productive. I am a new pages patroller and we tend to get a lot of abuse when we nominate pages for deletion, this comes with the territory but if you feel that I need to be admonished for abusive deletion nominations then feel free to take it to ANI. End of off topic comments, if you want to pursue the conversation please do so on my talk page.)

Comment The agency may be notable but its founders are not inherently notably, WP:NOTINHERITED explains this quite clearly. I am quoting the source that you supplied (the Italian page says Era uno dei fondatori di "Amaq") when I said "one of the founders", the blog in French does not mention Baraa Kadek and if the translation of the article is correct, neither does the article in Arabic, so as I stated the only sources that you have provided talk about this person are following his death in an air-raid hence my reference to BIO1E. All the sources that I could find about this person mentioned him being killed in the air-raid and nothing before this. If you can supply in-depth sources that are independent to this one event I will happily withdraw my nomination.Domdeparis (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The French source does mention him, under the name Rayan Meshaal. (L’agence aurait été fondée par le Syrien Riyan Mesh‘al) (The agency was founded by the Syrian Riyan Meshal). And the Arabic source does too, in paragraph 5. (The most important media institution for the organization, Amaq Agency, was founded by Aleppo activist Rayan Meshaal and seven of his colleagues from Aleppo News).

Unfortunately with a lack of serious investigative reporting, especially in the English language, and the obvious secrecy of IS, it is always difficult to find sources about people prior to their death. That is by no means is evidence of 'one event' lack of notability. Pruning useless pages is important but please err on the side of caution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuching7102 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The French source is quoting the Arab source and it is in the conditional form in French "aurait été". Is the Arab source a reliable one? I cannot judge could you tell us what the source is so we can judge if it is reliable or not and can you tell us where we can find a source that says that these 2 names refer to the same person and one that is not just quoting a Facebook post? Domdeparis (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A new source has been added but this is again quoting a facebook post which is most definitely not a reliable source and it goes further to say in the second line of the article that "The extremist group itself has not reported the death of Baraa Kadek." So the sources in this article are almost exclusively based on a facebook report. Domdeparis (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Amaq_News_Agency#History. Almost all of the coverage is essentially (in brief and) about his death by airstrike—what about his entire career in journalism? We don't have sufficient sourcing to do justice to this topic. Redirect to his existing mention in the aforementioned agency article. czar 18:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 2nd relisting in the hopes of getting some more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and selective merge to Amaq_News_Agency#History. Sourcing on this guy is thin, but what info on him exists is a useful part of the Amaq article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Abad

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

Can't find any news related to him. WP:NPF Nickrds09 ^{(Talk to me)} 09:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article, as written, contains no actual content or sourcing — to determine why the article was created, one has to carefully scan the infobox to locate the claim that he's the "incumbent acting governor of Pampanga". But firstly, I can find reliable source verification of neither this nor the corollary claim which was added to Governor of Pampanga that Lilia Pineda has taken a leave of absence at all. Secondly, even if she has taken a leave of absence, the "acting" replacement for a political officeholder is normally another political officeholder (e.g. the existing deputy or vice governor, a cabinet member, a high-ranking member of the legislature, etc.), not the absenting officeholder's unelected chief of staff (which is what Abad is claimed to have been prior to taking over as acting governor). And thirdly, I can't even find reliable source verification that somebody named Jon Abad was ever Pineda's chief of staff in the first place. All of which means that this is teetering dangerously close to the edge of being speediable as a WP:HOAX — the only possible way this isn't a complete crock of shit is if Pineda took a day or two of sick leave last week, so her chief of staff wasn't sworn in as "acting governor" in any official sense, but merely kept the paperwork flowing in his normal capacity as the supervisor of her office staff. And even if true, that would just mean he was doing his job, not acceding to hers, and wouldn't be particularly newsworthy or encyclopedic. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat's insightful comments and because it fails verifiability. Edison (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as G5 block by Jr abad Oripaypaykim (talk) 12:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, because I didn't quite understand what Oripaypaykim meant at first, a little bit of further investigation reveals Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jr abad, at which several users have been blocked over the past few months for repeatedly creating unverifiable hoax articles about someone named "John Deguzman", "John Abad" or "John Ray Deguzman Abad" — who was usually claimed as an actor, but sometimes threw in the claim to being Lilia Pineda's chief of staff as well. I knew about none of this before, but it's additional evidence in support of deletion and we should probably throw some WP:SALT on top. Bearcat (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, this has been recreated again and again under the names mentioned by Bearcat above. This is another case of a kid who imagines himself as a government official as well as a celebrity and creates an article about himself. This AFD should be used as a future reference for any admin in case this article will be recreated again. -WayKurat (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G3 (hoax) and G5 and tagged as such. Hoax article, need I say more? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Rachel, Nevada. So Why 09:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Little A'Le'Inn

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

No conceivable notability for this motel, mention in two shows is not enough justification, and there is nothing else. WP is not a travel guide. There seem to be no substantial independent sources DGG ( talk ) 09:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Rachel, Nevada. This has received some coverage, but it's borderline in terms of notability. Merging can improve the merge target article, as per WP:ATD-M. Here are some sources: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "No conceivable notability" Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a small local restaurant with an amusing name. If there's content to be merged to Rachel, Nevada it can be done so, but I don't support any history-merge or redirect. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 14:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksander Piotr Mohl

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

This appears to be a WP:OR outcome of some family research project. A mid-ranking official of a Polish government, he never held a position that would make him notable by its virtue. He received some medals and awards, and seems to have been mentioned in passing in some books (such as diplomatic memoirs of Juliusz Łukasiewicz), but I have doubts that sufficient for notability. Searches for "Aleksander Mohl" 1899 1954 produce nothing but basic DOB/DOD on some genealigy websites. Majority of the content in the article is unsourced, and likely based on family documents (the unsourced part includes the listing of medals and awards, which is the only pro-notability argument I see). Wikipedia:NOTGENEALOGY. PS. The subject should not be confused with Aleksander Mohl (1864-1913) [10] _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I trust Piotrus' judgement on this one. The awards would make him notable, but he has not done anything to earn them (no more prominent positions or achievements) so I would suspect they are not actually his. Agree that this seems like a family genealogy project. Renata (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the creating user in question of this new article is a newbie, and claims to have more sources - [11]. Give him a chance to present them.Icewhiz (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep - I'm not sure here, but endorse giving the author a bit more time. I've added to sources, Piotrowski 2004 p 61 and Rojek 2000 p 515 which briefly cover Mohl's career in a footnote and index, respectively (I only see snippet view of either). These two bits alone give enough information that the substantive parts of Mohl's career discussed in the article pass WP:V. In the index of Rojek 2000, it says Mohl is discussed on 5 pages. Looking for snippets from those pages, Mohl seems to be a significant character in the story being woven, for instance on page 199, the snippet involving Mohl talks about Mohl's playing at least a substantive if small role in advising those involved in recovering Poland's gold reserves. So my guess based on Rojek 2000 is that Mohl passes WP:RS/WP:N, at least for a single source (and it would be a surprise if more sources didn't exist, given the comparative paucity of Polish sources online). That said, there are definitely some WP:NOR and WP:NPOV issues in how the article is currently written. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed weak from my !vote to reflect the increase in sources found. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep understands the problem very accurately. The problem is that there are very few sources in English, most are in Polish. Thereby the paupacity of online sources. I have his military record from the Polish Military Center, but there is no way to patch unto Wikipedia. I have articles written, again very old ones and cant be sourced today. I agree he was a mid ranking diplomat, but he did get the awards, These are clearly shown in the NAC Polish archive photos. I am trying to rectify the situation of very few Polish Personality entries. Trying to put these people accesible to English reading researchers. Trying to have Wikipedia have more reach...If you dont like what I am doing..go ahead and delete them....Also very different perspeective from an Anglo saxon perspective than Polish one...For the Poles Alexander was a personality...so perhaps Wikipedia is meant to have a narrow only anglo saxon perspective. I thought I was helping the Poles and Wikipedia..I certainly dont mean to put so much effort on things that you easily and quickly delete.. Change the format and have a way to suggest entries you can brush off ..BEFORE doing the work--Gzegosh (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another point is that it is very hard to find information on Polish diplomats. What wasnt destroyed in the total destruction of Warsaw, center of Polish archives, was later destroyed by the Soviet backed Polish government. A case in point are the archives at the Polish Embassy in Paris. Nothing remains of those records. Alexanders military records are the best and most complete information, besides all his education, and military recommendations and activities until 1930, there is also a CV in Alexanders handwriting about his life.--Gzegosh (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gzegosh, I've taken the liberty of formatting your reply so it doesn't break the visual flow of the discussion. I am totally fine with giving you more time, and the sources found by Smmurphy are promising - having a bio summary in the footnote, which I can see on p.515, is good. Your goal to write more about Polish people is welcome, but you should try to include such references in the article as soon as possible to avoid deletion discussions. Poorly sourced content ends up in deletion discussions (per WP:V/WP:N/WP:OR and related policies). Please don't get too upset, but realize that if you publish your article in the main space instead of draft, you are explicitly asking others to review your work, and if it is unfinished or has other problems like poor referencing, this will get pointed out. Do note that Polish-language sources (or any other language) are welcome on English Wikipedia, you are not limited to English sources. Sources from PMC and 'articles' you mention (presumably from old newspapers?) can be cited; anything can be cited - please provide publication data, author, publisher, title, whatever is available. If documents are not copyrighted, you can scan them and upload to Wikimedia Commons. However, some sources, like family documents or subject's CVs, do not convey notability. It is not the place of Wikipedia to publish original research and make cases that some topics should get more coverage. If scholars etc. have not written about a subject, it is hard make the case we should. Fortunately, sources like Rojek's etc. can be helpful in this case. Hopefully you can obtain the copy of his book and use it to properly source the article. PS. Regarding the awards, you have to be much more clear about how we can identify them from the mentioned photos. If you are saying that you can identify the awards from the black and white [12], well... this is getting us very close to WP:OR. At the very least, I'd expect you to provide a clear description of which medal we see on the picture corresponds to which award. But generally, we don't accept photographs as sources to be interpreted by our editors, what we accept is published historian analysis of them, or better, a published document stating said facts. Do you have any document that states, in words, not pictures, what awards he received? PPS. Since we have found a likely good source (Rojek), I think this nom could be withdrawn: ping User:Renata3 - do you think the biographical footnote and presumed discussion over several pages would be sufficient? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - short mention here - [13] (page 295). I've also seen him mentioned Alexander (in a 2016 polish newsletter and also contemporary western sources). I've also found this - [14] - specifically page 59 discusses Mohl's (and his wife's), umm, exploits and arrival to US. Additional mention - [15]. Icewhiz (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep - I think he's notable. The article needs to be improved.Icewhiz (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC). To Keep, as apparently source of a major US war plan leak to the Abwehr. Seems he was serving in an important intelligence capacity if he was talking to head Office of Strategic Services William J. Donovan.Icewhiz (talk) 06:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable for stand alone article. It does not say he was the "source of a major US war plan leak", but only "mentioned as a possible source"; that means nothing. Reads like a family newsletter. WP:Memorial also applies. Kierzek (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's polish language sources too - 2 book sources: Rojek ([16]), Piotrowski ([17]) - are significant but not available online (but from snippet view of index - he is in a few pages in both books). Regarding the Donovan leak - most sources don't pin this on him (he might have) - but do pin this on the wide-ranging strategic conversation between Mohl and Donovan that was leaked by someone (unknown). One source goes as far as to label him as "the Polish secret service chief [18] - which I'm not sure is correct, but reading between the lines (diplomatic position, posting, political affiliation, and him being high-up enough to go back and forth between Lisbon and Washington and have talks on overall allied strategy with the OSS chief) - even if he wasn't #1, he was high-up. Sources on significant intelligence figures, and particularly Polish WWII figures (who figured very highly in the allied intel scene - but were PR-wise behind the scene and downplayed afterwards), are more scant than other topic areas.Icewhiz (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources seem pretty loose. I can appreciate that he lived a while ago, but nevertheless, it is clear that a lot of the information required to pass WP:GNG is either trivial or speculation. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 23:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: The subject clearly passes WP:MILPEOPLE. The article needs work/improvement; not a nomination in AfD. For the OR, we have {{original reasearch}} tag. Sources need to be found/translated. Looking at subject's activity period, it is understandable if a lot of sources are not available in "online format". One should change preferences in their search engine, and look for more sources from different languages including Polish. Given that he passes notabilty criteria (WP:MILPEOPLE), and the article was created on June 11, the article should be given a little time to be improved. The article is not a failure on notability criteria, it has issues with OR, and sources. That should be worked on. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please review last edits and add interesting find regarding Alexanders relationship with Goering before the war. --Gzegosh (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tip In good-faith; I formatted, and fixed the comment above. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The author has requested some extra time to work on the article and hopefully improve the sourcing which I am happy to accord since this discussion has not been relisted before and we don't have a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would withdraw this nom but there is still no source for what I think is the biggest notability claim - most awards. For example Cross of Merit (Poland) is on the level it likely makes the subject notable, but - we need a proof for it beyond a blurry photo (I am afraid interpreting the photo as editors would make us violate WP:OR). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: "break all the rules". OR in general is other thing. But anything for saving an article is different. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree most of the medals require better sourcing (the Order of the Cross of the Eagle is sourced - received in 1934 - as per Estonian government website) - he meets notability without them. The Polish - given that they might've been awarded by the Government in Exile would be difficult to source (not impossible - just a mess). I would like to see sources for these, but he meets SIGCOV, and his intelligence position makes him pass on WP:MILPEOPLE (including one source claiming he was "the Polish secret service chief - not sure if that's true, but clearly obvious he was high up if he was meeting OSS chief Donovan for in-depth strategy meetings). I think the AFD should be closed as keep. Some of the medals - the French and Belgian for instance - should be easier to source (I think!) than the Polish.Icewhiz (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:G4. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Palmer

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

Not notable in the slightest, all the 'sources' used in this article are clearly not reliable sources. Originally nominated for speedy delete but decided that I actually wanted to comment about the nature of the sources so decided that AfD is possibly better. It does seem to qualify for A7 however once the 'sources' are discounted. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 08:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops didn't check for previous AfDs. Should be speedied after all. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 08:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 08:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asheesh Misra

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

Does not meet general notability or biographical notability. Google search turns up no independent sources about him. Article has no references and has missing sections. Promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google might not be any good for this, as any sources are likely in Hindi. A couple of refs have been added, and the first one seems to be significant coverage (based on google translate), though I am not sure if it is a reliable source, as I do not know the source. The second is a newspaper cutting Pdf, but I cannot translate it so I can't verify the reliability or coverage of that source. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 10:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Northamerica1000:~~ @Insertcleverphrasehere: I am not satisfied with the reliability of the first source and I don't think if we can use it to establish notabiltiy, as per this it looks like a personal web site or something where anyone can post their stories and the second source reads like an advertisement. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS-1987: I think you meant to ping Insertcleverphrasehere. I only provided deletion sorting. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opps thank you for pointing it out. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. I can't tell you how much I hate the ISBN in the body of the article: these are commercial bar code numbers used to generate and track book sales, ergo, minus one star for crass promotionalism. Carrite (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources do not represent 3rd party coverage in reliable sources. This article does not even pass GNG let alone any more specific criteria for writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved to draft by author. WP:NPASR if it's returned to mainspace, or nominate the draft at WP:MfD if deletion is still desired. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 19:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Merritt

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

Does not appear to be a notable internet personality; a search failed to find enough significant coverage about him. Of the hits I did find, at best they were passing mentions or sites affiliated with him. Note that the film he supported does not appear to have a Wikipedia article either. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable. ZettaComposer (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article has been moved by its creator to the Draft namespace. However, it would probably be a good idea to keep this discussion open. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to USS_Contoocook_(1864)#Contoocook_class_sloop.2Ffrigate. (non-admin closure) Nördic Nightfury 08:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

USS Tahgayuta (1863)

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

Never finished. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD is directly related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Mondamin (1864), about another ship in the class, an AFD opened same day by same editor. --do ncr am 14:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What was never finished - the ship, or the article? Advocata (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all the cancelled cancelled ships at Template:Contoocook class sloop/frigate to a new article on the class, since some ships of the class were in fact buit. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree.TH1980 (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect: agree that merging and redirecting to a class article is probably the best approach for the cancelled vessels of this class. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would have said delete, but will go along with the proposal to redirect to a list article on the class. If I understand the article correctly, not only was the ship not finished, but probably never started. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss where to merge this to exactly
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. As I said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Mondamin (1864), i created Contoocook class sloop/frigate to serve as a merge target. This is the desired "list-article" which lists the ships in the class. In fact I started it as a section in the USS Contoocook (1864) article; it can be broken out or not according to editors there. --do ncr am 14:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the class page - this is standard practice unless the cancelled ship is otherwise notable (see for instance Japanese battleship Tosa), which is not the case here. Parsecboy (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cerecor

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Medgirl131 (creator) with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no claim to notability & A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Given the high level of participation and the sharp divide, I believe a further relisting is unlikely to bring forth a sudden burst of consensus. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 in heavy metal music

(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)

I applaud the creator of these pages for being so forward thinking, but we're not yet into June. Just because a band is in production (or even announced a release date) does not mean that they will finish the album by then. I am recommending draftification and/or userfication until we're a little bit closer to 2018 and there are actually hard dates (and actual album names). Primefac (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know it was too early, but I created this article after discovering that many bands had already planned or talked about releasing new music in at least 2018. Since we're not even close to the new year, I'd say redirect to Timeline of heavy metal and hard rock music. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per article creator above. Nate • (chatter) 20:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is not too early, nor is the now linked for AfD List of 2018 albums which Primefac has linked to 2018 in heavy metal music for consideration of deletion. These lists are annual lists that provide listings of when bands are releasing albums or doing other interesting things, and the general requirement for notability is that each entry has to be supported in notability by an article from a reputable news source, which for both articles this has been done. I am approaching this from the List of 2018 albums. For the preceding year, the List of 2017 albums was created in June, not May, so it is true that List of 2018 albums is coming one month earlier, however there is in fact significant amount of press listing albums expected in 2018. Artists are stating in interviews and news articles that their albums will be released in 2018, and currently there is no article to list the announcements. An example of other articles that are stating results for 2018 are 2018 in film, which lists some films as untitled, and lists release dates that will have some change by release date, so it is a form of corporate planning, coupled with expectation of no delays, otherwise known as business speculation. Bands are corporations too (I think), and are also taking part in business speculation. For the article on films, there is even an article for three years in the future, 2020 in film, which is pushing the edge for speculation and fact. Another article is 2018 Copa Sudamericana, which lists countries that are attending, and number of berths, but is basically saying TBA for the teams. To Be Announced is a fair placeholder for unknown details, in this case for album titles. Artists create the music, but the record companies probably approve the titles, maybe later in the process, so the bands are stating their planned release dates, but are not coming up with all the details at once. It is not too early to be listing bands and album activity for 2018 if there is press coverage from acceptable news sources Mburrell (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I say keep since so many artists have plans to release albums in 2018. There's no guidelines (that I know of) that state when the creation of such an article can be created. For instance, some editors might think September is fine, yet another editor might think that's too early, so there would be the same issue. Since so many bands are already listed on this article and more importantly sourced, just keep it at this point. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect OblivionOfficial (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 2018 is less than six months (181 days by my count) away, and many songs to be released that year are already in production. Bearian (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Your count is a bit off, Bearian, it's 211 days (6 months 28 days). We still have to get through June ;) Primefac (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 17:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All entries are sourced, so they can be verified, and appear notable too. It's not that far into the future, and per WP:CRYSTAL, this will almost certainly happen. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect "2018 in heavy metal music" - Keep, or redirect to Timeline of heavy metal and hard rock music. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect "List of 2018 albums" - Redirect "List of 2018 albums" to 2010s in music. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Primefac:, @MetalDiablo666:, @Mrschimpf:, @Mburrell:, @TheSickBehemoth:, @OblivionOfficial:, @Bearian:, @Lugnuts:, in your future comments, since there are two articles in this AFD, please specify to which encyclopedia article you are referring. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both, I would not object to a temporary redirect for either or both, if that is the consensus for now. Bearian (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Query Is this discussion to delete or redirect the selected articles trying to create a guideline for how soon an article for next years products can be created? Is there an informal rule to when an article can be created, such as saying 90 days out is absolutely fine, 180 days out is questionable but okay, maybe, but never 210 days out? If there are no rules, should rules or guidelines be created and posted, to guide users? Mburrell (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mburrell, I'm not necessarily trying to create a guideline. I just think a page that is 100% full of "TBA" (as is currently the case with List of 2018 albums) contains no useful information and should be either redirected, drafted, or deleted until there actually is information to include (at the very least, some Album titles or release dates!). I've made this case (successfully) in other venues; for example, we draftified the page on President Trump's judge appointments when it had no actual names on it, and only moved it back to article space when Gorsuch was confirmed. Primefac (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG that states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.". Of the 22 references 18 are from "Blabbermouth.net", and each one has a link to the site which is advertising. The reference to the group "Ratt", in the section Artists with material in production, is titled; Reunited RATT 'Would Love To' Release New Studio Album In 2018, with emphasis on "Would Love to". The reference for the group "Scorpions" is titled; "MIKKEY DEE Hopes To Produce A New Studio Album With SCORPIONS In 2018". The group "Testament" is referenced with a title "TESTAMENT Hopes To Release Next Album In 2018". There is a policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not that includes Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and #5 states; Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors and this article directly contradicts this. There are no improvements to Wikipedia to ignore policy in allowing these types of articles. How soon should we promote certain subjects? IF we do not ignore policy the answer would be "never". This article is a collection of material that is original research. Otr500 (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Otr500:, why should we not keep the histories of the articles in tact? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - There is nothing wrong with Blabbermouth.net as a source. Per WP:ALBUM/SOURCE, it is an acceptable on-line source, where we must use caution with BLP, but fine for albums. Since when did linking to a news source become advertising? Agreed that if a review of the reference indicates speculation and not a statement of fact, that each specific incident should be removed from the list. Mburrell (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While consensus is to keep this in one form or another, further discussion is needed whether to keep stand-alone articles (both or just one?) or to redirect them (where?)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both of these articles are continuations of annual lists, so even if the articles are deleted or redirected at this point in time, eventually both articles will be created and survive as stand-alone lists. The issues per the above discussions appear to be when should the articles be created, what constitutes proper proof of albums for release in 2018, and how much information should be available for the article to not be just vague hand-waving at the future.

Is seven months prior to 2018 too early? What is the criteria for content the lists must have before they are eligible to survive? As one user stated, per WP:CrystalBall, speculation is not acceptable for the creation of the articles, so if the news sources are speculating, then it is too early to list them. However, if the news sources are stating as fact that an album will be released in 2018, then it is not speculation. Finally, if the articles in general are listing TBA for album titles, does that indicate speculation at this point, or is a lack of album names not critical at this juncture? These appear to be the questions that need to be discussed to determine if the articles are to be deleted or redirected for now.

There might be other issues, so as the relisting segment states, more discussion is required. While I am not neutral on whether or not to keep the articles, I have tried to keep this summation of issues neutral, but if I have failed, please give this summation the benefit of the doubt and please let's discuss the issues. Mburrell (talk) 08:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The follow-up comment in the last redirect note is something for the article talkpages and not here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're going around in circles. See my comments above from 6 June for what I almost typed out verbatim again here. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

' "Delete" ' - we are not up to 2018, so I think it would be wise to wait until then before such an article finds its way into Wikipedia. Vorbee (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to Timeline of heavy metal and hard rock music - the article has good references and its not really that far in the future. Worse case, I'd recommend userfing until we are closer to the date.--– jfsamper ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 23:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Crystal ball exercise. Carrite (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 107.218.152.97 (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not make sense to have an article about 2018 before the year actually began and fails WP:GNG 173.239.207.50 (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If I had to make a firm decision, I would recommend redirecting the article, at least for now. I also believe that there should be a somewhat significant section entitled "Albums expected" with release dates before an article entitled "2018 in heavy metal music" is created. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D. S. R. Wanaguru

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

The article fails WP:ANYBIO. The subject was only a deputy inspector general of police, the third most senior rank in the Sri Lanka Police Service, which does warrant auto-notability. Dan arndt (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) is Senior gazetted officer of Sri Lanka Police, should not be deleted instead allow the article to be further improved.DilJco (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @DilJco: just because they are/were a senior police officer does not make them automatically notable. Clearly fails to satisfy the requirements under WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage is WP:ROUTINE coverage of promotions and assignments. No indication that theres is significant, independent coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 20:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Padmalal Sandungahawatte

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

The article fails WP:ANYBIO. The subject was only a deputy inspector general of police, the third most senior rank in the Sri Lanka Police Service, which does warrant auto-notability. Dan arndt (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) is Senior gazetted officer of Sri Lanka Police, should not be deleted instead allow the article to be further improved.DilJco (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @DilJco: just because they are/were a senior police officer does not make them automatically notable. Clearly fails to satisfy the requirements under WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage is WP:ROUTINE coverage of promotions and assignments. No indication that there is significant, independent coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find any in-depth coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This has been open a month; has been relisted three times; and has had no substantial input for at least three and arguably over two weeks. Therefore there seems no realistic likelhood of a consensus emerging to delete this article. What discussion that did take place, however, was evenly-weighted between policy arguments to delete, and sourced-based arguments to keep. No prejudice of course aganst WP:DRV. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 14:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mithra Siriwardena

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

This article was subject to previous speedy delete and this re-creation of the article still fails WP:ANYBIO. The subject was only a deputy inspector general of police, the third most senior rank in the Sri Lanka Police Service, which does warrant auto-notability. Dan arndt (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) is Senior gazetted officer of Sri Lanka Police, should not be deleted instead allow the article to be further improved.DilJco (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @DilJco: just because they are/were a senior police officer does not make them automatically notable. Clearly fails to satisfy the requirements under WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Consider Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the third highest rank in the Metropolitan Police Service of London, UK, i.e. covering a population a bit less than half that of Sri Lanka. Most of the people in that role are notable, so, by extension, it seems likely to me that holders of the third highest rank in the Sri Lanka Police Service would probably be notable. The current article clearly fails WP:GNG as is, but there is material out there, like [19], [20], [21], and passing mentions in [22] and [23]. So, on balance, I'd go with keep. Bondegezou (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are five Assistant Commissioners but there were 46 Deputy Inspector Generals (at 31/12/15).--Obi2canibe (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment based on Obi2canibe's comment this means that in the history of the Sri Lankan Police force there could be over 1,000 DIGs - I don't see how the whole is automatically notable as a result. The article needs to meet WP:BASIC at the very least, which this doesn't. Dan arndt (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trying one last time to generate some more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (to closer) there is no justification that a DIG is inherently notable. Both DilJco ~~and Obi2canibe~~ have not been active since making their respective comments. Dan arndt (talk) 04:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Mendis

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

This article was subject to a previous speedy delete as it fails WP:ANYBIO. The subject was only a deputy inspector general of police, the third most senior rank in the Sri Lanka Police Service, which does warrant auto-notability. There is nothing contained within the article to establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) is Senior gazetted officer of Sri Lanka Police, should not be deleted instead allow the article to be further improved.DilJco (talk) 07:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @DilJco: just because they are/were a senior police officer does not make them automatically notable. Clearly fails to satisfy the requirements under WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 09:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete pretty much per nom. Nothing confirming notability here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Dennis M. Clougherty

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

There is no claim to notability for this unsolved murder. Sourcing does not help. Declined 4 times at AfC Draft:Death_of_Dennis_M._Clougherty (which should also be deleted) before the user took it to mainspace themselves. Legacypac (talk) 07:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTNEWS, fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:CRIME. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this tragic killing per WP:CRIME which says "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article" Nothing here to support WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article does not offer sources that would meet notability threshold, and I don't think there are any. Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Weather Channel w/o prejudice to article recreation if and when sufficient reliable source coverage can be found to establish WP:N. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Cass

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

This article was tagged BLPPROD, and I added a source, making it ineligible for that criterion. There has been some edit warring at The Weather Channel about whether Cass is notable, so I'm posting this seeking a wider consensus.

There seem to be few reliable sources about her and other TWC hosts, so we might not be able to expand this beyond a summary of her on-air positions and awards. As for my !vote, it's ~~neutral~~. —Guan aco 02:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's notable and it has a reliable source. Diako ^{« Talk »} 08:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Diako1971: The notability guidelines state "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.". What significant coverage has Kelly Cass garnered in multiple sources? 331dot (talk) 08:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking the article should be changed back to a redirect until she is written about more in more sources(which she isn't now from at least what I have seen). The article also seems to have been created by her husband [24] [25] who seems to feel that it is sexist and unfair to have an article about Kelly Cass' co-host and not her- but if she isn't written about as much, she wouldn't necessarily merit an article yet(WP:TOOSOON) even if her co-host(who does seem to have more things written about him) does. Her name can and probably should be placed in The Weather Channel just not as a link. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to throw him under the bus, but she has over five times as many real, authenticated followers on Social Media as he does (30x times as many on Facebook), so the statement above about who is "written about" more is not true. Keybeeny (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but that's completely irrelevant because social media is not a reliable source, nor is our (WP editors') counting or other analysis thereof. DMacks (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the Year 2017 it is almost quaint to see the editors of Wikipedia trying to determine if someone is "noteworthy enough" using metrics which have passed into a bygone age. This question would not have even been raised without your unnecessary deletion of an entry which merely stated the fact that she is a host of AMHQ Weekend. We have easily established that fact, but now you feel it is necessary to determine if there is some other reason for mentioning or not mentioning it? Here she was on NBC Nightly News, seen by a far larger audience than CNN and TWC combined:

links
{{{1}}}

But there still needs to be a long drawn out discussion of whether or not it is accurate to state that she is host of AMHQ?? That's absurd.

The question was not whether there has been a lot of articles written about her which may be linked to on a PC, it was whether or not it is accurate to state on Wikipedia that she is the host of AMHQ. So you really need to just let it go and leave it to people who watch that channel, which apparently nobody here does. Which is fine, but if you did, you would also realize what a no-brainer it is to include Alexandra Wilson as host of Weather Underground as well. Keybeeny (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are conflating mentioning her and their being a separate article about her (The latter being the subject under discussion). No article here is limited to those in the know; everyone can weigh in on any article. Again, no one disputes your wife is on TWC. That's not the issue. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, with all due respect, that is indeed the issue. When someone adds an AMHQ host to a list of AMHQ hosts (of which there are only five in the entire world), if that person is in fact an AMHQ host, then they belong on that list and your insistence that you are the arbiter of whether or not they belong on that list, even after having been presented with proof of such, amounts to you just ****. Keybeeny (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Keybeeny, consider this your formal warning for incivil discussion. Please focus on the WP content, not the your opinion of the editors. DMacks (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. This definitely does not pass WP:NOTABILITY, and the only references are attributed to her employer's website. The sources are clearly a violation of WP:SECONDARY. --Z L Media 17:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which happens to also be the case for others on the list. Apparently the fact that the employer's website (which actually now belongs to IBM and not TWC anymore) is one of the most heavily-trafficked on the Internet amounts to nothing, while a fraudulent, bot-created website like articlebio.com which gathers information from Social Media and re-packages it in a much more untrustworthy and grammatically incorrect format, is acceptable? The contradictions are mind-boggling here. Keybeeny (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only weather-personality article I see that cites articlebio.com is Jen Carfagno. There are other cites as well (that one does not look critical), and that article itself is tagged as possibly not meeting WP:BIO either (that is, it could wind up at Articles for deletion too). An argument of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is sometimes just as likely to get other-stuff deleted too vs getting what you want kept. DMacks (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I requested external opinion on the general usability of that site. Feel free to comment further at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#articlebio.com on that specific issue. DMacks (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weather.com with few exceptions is the reference source for just about every single footnote of every single TWC on-air personality listed on Wikipedia. It is considered a trustworthy site, even though it actually no longer has any formal relationship with TWC after having been purchased by IBM. It is quite interesting to see the other folks' entries being questioned and calls made for their possible removal now when all that was necessary was to just allow the addition of the name of the fifth AMHQ host to the list of the other four. The staunch opposition being raised here and claims being made about what constitutes a trustworthy reference while being apparently unaware of what is actually already being used here raises questions about everything else found on Wikipedia. Keybeeny (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable TV presenter. Just because your face is on the screen doesn't make you notable. Nothing independent and in depth here Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is an opinion which certainly has a valid basis; merely being on-screen does not necessarily make one notable. Of course, by that logic the others with the exception of Jim Cantore who is pretty well-known and possibly Reynolds Wolf who was on CNN for years before joining TWC would fall into the same category. The network tracks Nielsen ratings and one's reach on Social Media which are both pretty strong for Kelly Cass which is why she has been there for 18 years, but for a site like Wikipedia which insists on articles posted for web browsing on a PC which is a diminishing and declining source of information in the year 2017, apparently those metrics don't mean much. Keybeeny (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You pretty clearly identified the kernel of your concern: popularity or personnel issues and value to a business are not the same as notability, by widespread and long-standing consensus for our encyclopedia (WP:BIO has been mentioned before). You're welcome to try to push to change that, but this specific forum isn't the place. DMacks (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)That is not accurate. A reliable source (have you read that page?) is not limited to those online. It can be printed media as well or other media formats, as long as the source is reliable. As told to you already, user-editable sources like social media are not considered reliable sources. If you want to fight the battle to change that policy, you are free to, but that's how things stand now. You are also free to work to change what is considered notable for biographies(have you read that as well?) but, again, that's what we have now. If you find that unsatisfactory, there isn't much else anyone here can do for you.

In addition, as already stated, citing others in a similar position as your wife is only pointing out other things that likely need to be removed. As a volunteer project worked on by hundreds of thousands of people, some poor content gets through. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have now placed yourself in the position of saying, "Sure, there are a bunch of people who have appeared for many years on a cable network which reaches millions of viewers and they have shows which are aired every day on that channel, but we are unfamiliar with these people ourselves since we don't watch. So thus we can safely conclude they are not noteworthy." Keybeeny (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:RS standard is precisely so that we are not limited to those "in the know" (in the viewing area and care to watch the channel), but rather have a more neutral basis for deciding. We are all editors, there are no ordained specialists here. Instead, it was long decided that we look to others (and have specified the standards for accepting them). That's indepenent, reliable sources vs editors' own opinions, heresay, and non-independent sources. DMacks (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not see reliable sources independent of the subject, required for the general notability guideline. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So then you must also be recommending the deletion of the entry for Paul Goodloe which has three citations, all from weather.com. Keybeeny (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:AFDHOWTO to learn how to make that request if you are interested and have the time to do so. As a volunteer project, we all choose where to spend our time. DMacks (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine with me if you want to nominate that for deletion too. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. What would Wikipedia.com do without such vigilant and meticulous editors? When someone goes and completes a longstanding and unquestioned list by adding valid, proven, unrefuted information, the result turns out to be a recommendation for the deletion of the very list. Keybeeny (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the sources currently in the article. It´s easy to find passing mentions in reliable sources ([26][27][28]) but that is not enough per WP:GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, this [29] might add to notability. I don´t think it´s selfpublished. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being referred to as a Notable Former On Air Staff on Wikipedia ( WRNN-TV ) for years could possibly be an indication that someone has met the standard of being notable. To reasonable people, anyway. Keybeeny (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. On Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not a WP:RELIABLE source. We need better sources than "us", see for example Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but the folks who swooped in and deleted the entries at the Weather Channel wiki did not impose their handiwork years ago when the entries were made at RNN-TV since names like Brian Kenny and Kelly Cass and others belong on it. TV personalities reach millions of viewers and have a large body of work retrievable on Internet-hosted video, which makes them well-known and with large numbers of fans without necessarily having a large body of good old-fashioned plain text articles typed about them. Nice job finding that book reference, though. Keybeeny (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not in doubt that a TV weather forecaster appears on TV. We don't need terabytes of video to prove it. That's not the issue. Amassing lots of video is not listed on the notability criteria. We are all volunteers here and until we all get paid to do this some improper content will get through. 331dot (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that there is a criterion quite plainly listed on the notability criteria whose wording goes "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media", which would appear to contradict your insistence that there is nothing notable about being featured in a most notable mainstream media outlet, for example the NBC Nightly News. That criterion is Wikipedia's standard for pornographic actors to be notable. Wikipedia has a different standard for journalists, obviously. So it is considered notable to simply appear in the media as long as it is for a lewd or lascivious purpose, but not for one such as forecasting and communicating. Not just appear, but be one of five featured hosts on a network's flagship offering and to have been for 18 years.Keybeeny (talk) 06:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the NBC Nightly News piece was about her personally in some way? Be careful in cherry-picking notability criteria, it also states "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject" TWC is owned by NBCUniversal, meaning her appearances on NBC Nightly News are at the direction of her employer and are a primary source. She is considered notable if "if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Further, there are also specific criteria for biographies that apply(either biographies in general or specifically for professionals).

I'm sure I would be arguing as hard as you if it was my wife under discussion, and I don't blame you for doing so. However, you are demonstrating the importance of the conflict of interest policy. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are demonstrating that violating the policy of full disclosure is better than honoring it since you seem to use it in order to dismiss the discussion from the topic at hand to keep on referring to my personal relationship with it. Keybeeny (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC) Additionally, the characterization you have made is actually not true, since the two networks have always been managed independently of one another and the decision to request someone to report for the NBC Nightly News was not merely at the direction of management, but the producers there would specifically request someone and decline to use another if the original one requested was not available. Keybeeny (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question for those who said delete: Are there specific reasons why we should delete this and not redirect it to The Weather Channel? —Guan aco 09:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, I´m ok with it. It would make her the only one in that list without an article, but there´s no law against that, and I think AfD:s are needed for more of them, like Reynolds Wolf and Jen Carfagno. Also, the section shouldn´t be named Notable current personalities, Notable is basically WP-jargon in context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should close this as redirect, then redirect the other similar articles as well, linking this AfD on each of their talk pages. If they're substantially the same and it doesn't require admin functions, why repeat the process ad nauseam? —Guan aco 19:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also we could include a couple sentences for each of the TV personalities in the article, similar to the various "List of characters" pages. —Guan aco 19:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If yes, but unless they fall under some sort of speedy deletion criteria, AfD:s might be necessary to give interested people a chance to separate the babies from the bathwater. If this closes as delete/redirect, perhaps the next step would be a discussion (RFC?) at The Weather Channel, something like "I suggest we do the same with Notable current personalities X Y Z etc." Maybe a "group-delete" will be agreed to that way.

The "characters" idea is not a bad one, primary sources like [30] could be used (a little). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you can always WP:BOLD whatever you think reasonable, and see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also whether to redirect to The Weather Channel article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Weather Channel. Maybe there can be some sort of section in that article on various channel personalities. Carrite (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdan Janković

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is another page for Bojan Janković. Primefac (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually Bogdan Janković meets the specifics of WP:NHOCKEY, namely, 1. Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league. He played, inter alia, for HK Partizan a professional team in the Serbian Hockey League. The Serbian Hockey League is the top league for ice hockey in Serbia. According to its Wikipedia article (not a reliable source) HK Partizan has won 20 national championships and three cups, and is the most successful ice hockey team in Serbia. In 2010 he played for HK Spartak Subotica a professional team in the Serbian Hockey League. Since 2011 he has played, and coached, for HK Vitez of the Serbian Hockey League. If I have misread the guideline, my apologies; I don't usually work on ice hockey articles, but came across this one while looking for Bogdan Janković (1868-1918) educator and Serbian nationalist. --Bejnar (talk) 02:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bejnar: He does not actually meet WP:NHOCKEY; there is a linked list of what is considered a "top professional league" and no serbian league is included.18abruce (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the "linked list" is an essay, not a guideline. The "linked list" seems to suffer from systemic bias toward English speaking leagues. Since 2009 Serbia has played in the "big leagues". In fact Bogdan Janković played on the team that moved them from Division II to Division I. I agree that he did not play in the Olympics, nor did he play on the national team after it entered Division I. As best I can determine he has played about 180 professional games in the Serbian League, but I have been unable so far to find recent data. He seems to meet the spirit of WP:NHOCKEY, if not the exact parameters. As to WP:GNG, coverage seems to be about par (or a tad more) for notable, albeit non-superstar, ice hockey players. --Bejnar (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet NHOCKEY, I tried to find evidence of GNG and was unable.18abruce (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@18abruce: Most of the references are in Serbian, hence "Богдан Јанковић" is one appropriate search term. To avoid false drops it can be combined with forms of the word hockey, "Хокеј", "хокејашки", "xокејашка", or the name of one of his teams such as: "Витез", "Спартак" or "Партизан". Once a useful website is found, results can be expanded with Google's site: function. See, for example, this report of a match where he scored three of the seven winning goals (other players scored one each). The two other arguably notable people with the name "Bogdan Janković" are the current playwright/director and the late 19th, early 20th century educator. --Bejnar (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did do serbian searches, as I do to find correct spellings of names for when I detail their national team games. Non of the found sources were above routine coverage. Whether or not NHOCKEY is an essay or not, Serbian hockey is nowhere near the "big leagues" in any kind of coverage. His national team coverage is way below consensus to meet NHOCKEY as well. You said, "if I have misread the guideline, my apologies", well I tried to point out that yes, you did misread it---playing in the top league in your own country is irrelevent in NHOCKEY, not mentioned there. The linked list provided is there to help the reader understand what is meant by the different criteria, and changes through consensus.18abruce (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is listed in eliteprospects database with full bio and other info. link: http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=44461 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurohockisupreme (talk • contribs) 12:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plays for the national team, and that's notable enough Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Elections in New Jersey. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 13:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unaffiliated (New Jersey)

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

Delete as a topic not notable enough for a standalone article. Independent voters in New Jersey, regardless of the name, do not significantly differ from independents in any other U.S. state and no claim of that has been made in the article. The definition of an independent voter is already appropriately covered in the Independent voter and Unenrolled voter articles, and I don't see any useful content that could justify a merge. Slon02 (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect & merge to Politics of New Jersey.--TM 01:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The particular ways in which independent voters may vote and participate in primary elections are unique to New Jersey and appropriately covered in a standalone article that is backed by appropriate reliable and verifiable sourcing. Alansohn (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Could Alansohn or any other Jerseyan elaborate briefly on how independent voters' effect on primary elections in New Jersey is different from the 11 other closed-primary states listed at Primary elections in the United States? Not knowing how elections are run there, I am genuinely curious if there is a major difference. If there isn't, I would think this information, including any minor quirks related to New Jersey (terminology, timelines) could be covered adequately in the primary elections article, and/or Politics of New Jersey and/or Independent voter as suggested above. _``` t b w i l l i e _` $1.25 _` 03:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not a Jerseyan (across the river), but NJ has a semi-open primary system: only party members can vote, but unaffiliateds can sign up to join that party at the polls. This is not a unique system in the United States, where there are only 9 states with fully closed primaries, 19 states don't have party options on voter registration forms, and a plurality of states have ranging degrees of semi-open/semi-closed primary systems. I think our existing articles on US party registration and primary elections could do with some expansion, but I'm not seeing very much evidence of NJ being a particularly unique case - somewhat interesting, yes, but not unique.--Slon02 (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Elections in New Jersey. This is valuable information, but not well enough developed to be split off from is parent article or, in this case, it's grandparent article, since neither Primaries in New Jersey nor Party affiliation in New Jersey exist. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect as per above. There is just not enough here for a stand alone article and this is likely to end up as a perma-stub. If at some point that changes we can always recreate the article and expand it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm usually wary to relist a fourth time but since consensus seems to be in favor of merging and redirecting, the question of the target has to be answered. Namiba suggested Politics of New Jersey while Philosopher suggested Elections in New Jersey and Ad Orientem arguing for "per above" without clarifying which "above" they mean.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the apparent consensus in this discussion, and after looking over the contents of the two proposed merge destinations, I think that Elections in New Jersey would be the appropriate merge destination. That article better describes the political landscape of the state - and thus would be more ideal for a mention of the state's peculiar voter registration laws - than the politics article, which largely discusses the state's history as well as political issues.--Slon02 (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on the page contents, I recommend Elections in New Jersey as a merge/redirect target. There's a case that Elections in New Jersey could be merged to Politics of New Jersey later, but that would need to be discussed on the talk pages first. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge and redirect. No case for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World of Good

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 AMF Futsal Women's World Cup

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. There appears to be a rough consensus that enough reliable source coverage exists to ring the WP:N bell. If there is a belief that the project might be better served with a merge that discussion should occur in a dedicated merge discussion. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Acres

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

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

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

Keep. Seems notable. While I haven't really heard of this before, a cursory look at Scholar suggests this character was subject to some literary analysis: " Bob Acres is not the reputed author's original creation, but a compound of Jonson's Stephen, Bobadil, Cob, Matthew and Brainworm" [32]. He has a (short, but still) entry in this dictionary/encyclopedia-like work: Jonathan Law (16 December 2013). The Methuen Drama Dictionary of the Theatre. A&C Black. pp. 4–. ISBN 978-1-4081-3148-0., and he is important enough to be a central subject of what seems to be a teaching exercise at James Stobaugh (1 November 2012). British Literature: Cultural Influences of Early to Contemporary Voices. New Leaf Publishing Group. pp. 238–. ISBN 978-0-89051-673-7.; to find just three sources. Ping User:Jclemens who can probably dig even more sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Piotrus in that a cursory look through Google News, Books, and Scholar suggest that this character has enough coverage for an article. The article may be in an extremely poor shape as it currently stands, but the subject matter appears to have the coverage necessary to meet notability standards. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Rivals and merge the minor detail this article provides. Perhaps there enough reliable sources to establish notability. Having this bit existing separate from The Rivals suffers from lack of context that merging it does not. WP:NCHAR isn't a notability guideline although I like it's 'other options' advice for this subject. Nothing prevents breaking it out to a separate article later if the content is expanded sufficiently to warrant it. Gab4gab (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Oracle of Hi-Fi

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found some reviews/sources and adding them. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An interview can be helpful but is a primary source. It needs reliable secondary coverage to be considered notable.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would this or this work? One of the references I already included references the interview as well. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still am not seeing sources that talk about the album specifically (not just a few passing mentions). I'm all for keeping articles but if your scraping at the bottom of the barrel just to find small mentions of the album, it is probably a good indication it isn't notable enough for a standalone page.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already have included reviews on the album in the reception section. I've also found a 2003 article in Canadian Musician detailing the recording process of the album. This article is also available in EBSCO as well, and I will be adding to the article since I have access to it. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Birahi karki

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

No references; seems to fail notability guidelines. Google News search returns 1 result; result only mentions subject in passing. Article may be autobiography; creator of article has same username as article title. Previous articles were deleted under A7, this particular article had an A7 contested. Jumpytoo Talk 06:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The IP who removed the CSD A7 seems to identify as the article creator judging from the Talk page comment: "this is my simple and not copied artical ..this artical create me .i asked not delet this." [33]. AllyD (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to satisfy either WP:BIO or WP:BAND; also

Comment SPI now open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Birahi Karki. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant self-promotion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cascade Center

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

Sources largely have nothing to do with the center itself. No sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. It is not a hoax but does not rise to being worth an article. --Lockley (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Building is not notable for its modern use, but clearly is historically significant as the first Warner Bros theater. It was easy to find sources, such as [34], [35], and [36] - not a very thorough WP:Before. It is mentioned in Warner Bros (as the first theater), which I have now linked. I'm surprised this isn't on the NHRP. The article needs better sourcing and cleanup, not deletion. MB 05:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MB: Those sources are about the theater, not the shopping center on its site. The theater is very likely notable, but the article barely mentions the theater. I would not be opposed to an article on the theater. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The theater has been recreated as part of the complex on the same site. I don't see a reason for a different article. The current complex is the modern evolution of the historic theater. Source #1 and #3 focus on the theater. Source #2 does not. I was picking sources about the theater to emphasize the historic nature, but there are other sources like #2 about the whole complex. Anyway, the two are inter-twined and I think this article should be kept. Adding more info on the theater would certainly be an improvement. I agree that without the theater/history, this would be a [wp:mill] shopping center. The article should simply be expanded. MB 17:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The tail is trying to wag the dog. The theater is clearly notable (I might create that article myself), but the center can't inherit notability from it. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not a big fan of relisting AfDs more than twice but I think we may be inching towards a consensus here. Let's see what happens.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) f e minist 15:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Russell Kamp

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

No reliable sources found. The albums listed did not chart on major charts; the Americana and Euro Americana charts are not usable per WP:GOODCHARTS. Closest sources only mention him passingly. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple reliable sources exist. The article would benefit from further editing/expansion, but I have gone ahead and added references to the article to illustrate some of the coverage found. Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. gongshow talk 03:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage in PopMatters, AllMusic, and No Depression together meets WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Knight's Cross recipients 9th SS Panzer Division Hohenstaufen

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

An unnecessary cross-categorisation created when the awarding of the Knight's Cross was accepted on Wiki as a presumption of notability. Since then, the community consensus has evolved and the awarding of the Knight's Cross no longer carries such a presumption; please see the close at Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners. Lists of similar scope have been recently deleted at AfD, such as:

In addition, I'm nominating similar articles created in the same timeframe. The rationale above is equally applicable to these lists:

List of Knight's Cross recipients 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Knight's Cross recipients SS Division Norland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Knight's Cross recipients 15th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Latvian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Knight's Cross recipients 19th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (2nd Latvian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Knight's Cross recipients 8th SS Cavalry Division Florian Geyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the reason for deletion is that this is an unnecessary duplication of material on List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients, for those not willing to work through several lengthy discussions? --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Colapeninsula: I nominated the lists because I consider them to be an unneeded cross categorisation; compare with Category:Lists of Medal of Honor recipients -- it include lists by conflict & by ethnicity, for example, but there are no List of Medal of Honor Recipients of X Division during World War II & similar list articles. Breaking down the recipients by such minute categories seems excessive. In addition, the Knight's Cross no longer serves to establish presumed notability under WP:SOLDIER by the Wiki community (unlike in 2008), so these lists are on non-notable subjects themselves. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. We just don't have lists of honors by unit. List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A), etc. are more than sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These lists all fail basic notability requirements like WP:LISTN. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, it's common sense as per other AfD outcomes for likewise articles. Ajf773 (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed delete of foreign unit awards lists, such award alone has been cited in deportation proceedings as evidence of war crimes, for example, by members of the 15th and 19th Waffen-SS, Latvian 1st and 2nd. I would support consolidation of the two lists I just cited into one indicating division. The single master list is impossible to muddle through. If that list were upgraded to be useful, we can revisit. It's not about notability, that the master list exists demonstrates agreement on notability. The issue is usability. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I don't see the above as a valid reason for keeping the list on the Latvian recipients. I've searched for [Latvian recipients of the Knight's Cross] & I'm not seeing sources that discuss the topic, mostly non RS militaria literature: link, veering to revisionism such as Siegrunen by Richard Landwehr, a publication that is popular with the neo-Nazi crowd. Likewise, [Latvian recipients of Nazi awards] brings up sources that mention the detail in passing, such as MI6: Inside the Covert World of Her Majesty's Secret Intelligence Service. There's plenty of discussion of [Latvian Waffen-SS members] or similar, but not the award recipients as a group, thus failing WP:LISTN. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the alphabetical listings are more than enough. I don't see any reason to have additional lists splitting them up like this. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. I had considered another relisting but with a reasonable level of participation and opinions all over the place on this, I see little hope for a sudden burst of agreement. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Redemption

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

Does not meet general notability guidelines nor film-specific notability guidelines. Google News hits indicated by previous objectors to deletion are passing mentions, and do not discuss the film in depth. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: completing IP request per WT:AfD message, rationale copied from article talkpage. GermanJoe (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Considering. this mentions it, and any number of obituaries of the one actor from Star Wars who appeared in the film give a brief mention it, but I've seen nothing indicating any deep commentary. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, I did a custom search of the google news archives of dates prior to his passing and found two articles which mention The Dark Redemption briefly. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 06:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly, then, the coverage this film has enjoyed has predominently been due to the notability of one of its actors (possibly two, if I undersatnd it?); even so, this clearly lacks the WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE of coverage that demonstrates notability, or the stand-alone reliable sources. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm finding that this is repeatedly mentioned in academic books as an example of SW fan films, so I think that at the very least it should be mentioned somewhere if it can't have its own article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there somewhere it could be mentioned? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as academic book sources support a small stub Atlantic306 (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Barely.

Juddery, Mark (1 May 1999), "Labour Of Love For "Star Wars"", Canberra Times

Solid in depth article about the film.

Casamento, Jo; Ewen, Amy (14 July 1999), "Labour Of Love For "Star Wars"", Daily Telegraph

article on films issues with Lucasfilms

In addition there is more weak sources such as

"Mel's brother stars", Sunday Herald Sun, 25 April 1999

Mel Gibsons brother is making his acting debut.

Just enough to sqeeze into GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which databases are you using to find these citations? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 08:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Granted I am a little bias since I don't think any fan made video, film or self published book should have a Wikipedia page in the first place, but the fact is, it only has three references. And one of those is from an obscure book of essays (citation #2). It's just not notable enoughGiantdevilfish (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep in one form or another. Ad Orientem and I had hoped that further relists could clarify the preferred way to keep this material but unfortunately despite three relists it's still only clear that the material should be kept but not in what form. I'm thus closing it as keep and not "no consensus" because the latter implies that there had been an equally strong case for deletion.

Merging or renaming can be discussed at the article's talk page. So Why 08:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Nations

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

Article is based almost entirely on primary sources about a doctrine of a minor religious group, and was probably originally created as a coatrack for the 'controversy' about the Watch Tower Society's 'association with the UN' as an NGO associated with the UN's Department of Public Information. A previous AfD was raised in 2006, with a result of Keep. However, the reasons given were essentially that 'both organisations are notable'. Notability of the organisations is not in question; the doctrine is not particularly notable. If deleted, notable aspects about the doctrine can be merged into Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs, and possibly History of Jehovah's Witnesses. Jeffro77 (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "of a minor religious group," mmmmmm, "membership of 8.3million" minor?, i suppose Mormons are also a minor religious group, allbeit with a membership of around 15 million, a slightly larger minor group? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Mormons are indeed also a minor religious group. Is this not obvious? JWs make up less than 0.4% of Christians.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just like the minor tertiary institutions of oxford, cambridge and harvard that only have enrollments of around 20,000...

Coolabahapple (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that JW and Mormon members are in some way 'elite'? Or are you just making an irrelevant observation about something that is not directly comparable?--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

or that the word "minor" is one of those words that can be subjective and a matter of opinion?Coolabahapple (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please say something relevant about the AfD or go away.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I see no reason to delete this, but it does seem like excessive coverage of a minor theological doctrine. I support a 1-2 paragraph treatment of this topic, in an article on politically-relevant theological views of the Jehovah's witnesses. Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses has NPOV issues as a merge target, Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs would probably work. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm unclear how major of a doctrine this is. It seems minor, which suggests merge unless more secondary sources are found. However, the doctrine is already mentioned at Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses, and perhaps that page would be a better merge destination. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
REname to Jehovah's Witnesses attitude to the United Nations, which is a better description of the content. This seems to be an example of where their doctrine varies over the years, a matter they do not willingly admit. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming the article will not address the fact that it is not sufficiently notable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, okay, this is one of the fundamental beliefs of jws (it just doesn't come up when they are preaching door-to door:)), being integral with their view/prophecies about the destruction of all religions and organisations (except them of course:)) that they believe are in opposition to Jehovah (God) and the setting up of God's kingdom on the Earth. Agree that the majority of sources are primary and there does appear to be an undue emphasis on the UN Department of Public Information issue, that really should only be a one or two sentence mention. The article should either be kept and improved with more non-jw sources (difficult as there is a dearth (love that word, dearth, yeeaaahh...) of such sources) or merged/redirected to Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses with a 1, 2 line mention at Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JW view of the United Nations is already mentioned at both the suggested articles. Whether further information is warranted merits discussion at both those articles and/or other related articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mormons also believe that when Jesus Christ returns he will reign on earth as the literal king, and human governments will have an end. I can source this. However to go from that statement to then write about what this means for existing governments needs to be based on reliable secondary sources. We need such sources, not just quote mining from primary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; IMHO it is sufficiently sourced and notable. Merging it to either "beliefs" or "history" would not be desirable, as it is particularly the changes in the beliefs which are of encyclopaedic value. – Fayenatic London 09:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is it sufficiently sourced? The notability guideline says articles should be based on secondary sources. This article is based almost entirely on primary sources. Other than the 'exposé' section, the only primary source in the article was before either Jehovah's Witnesses or the United Nations even existed. The JW view of the UN has been fleshed out at this article—based only on primary sources—in order to 'support' the 'exposé' section. Most sources on the subject of JW views of the UN are either primary sources or unacceptable sources such as blogs and forums.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you count the United Nations citations (as well as JWs) as primary sources, it also has two sources from a broadsheet newspaper. – Fayenatic London 21:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It also has two sources from a broadsheet newspaper... in the exposé section. I already said that.

Also, your recent addition at the article seems to be a good example of why it is isn't really a good idea to form article titles by just joining two things with "and". It is unhelpful for an article to just be a collection of interactions between the two things.

Your addition has no relevance to the section you put it in. The only way for your recent addition to be salvaged would be to rename the last section to something like Jehovah's Witnesses interactions with the UN, reduce the 'exposé', and add your addition to that section. But since the article is not notable, it's probably not worth the effort. JWs are not the only religious group to have lodged appeals with the UN Human Rights Committee, and it is undue weight to have an article on that basis.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT REMOVE this valuable information. It is imperative that this available. It has saved lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.8.132.15 (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the article has 'saved lives' is neither established nor relevant. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it Wikipedia's purpose to 'right great wrongs'. The criteria for inclusion is that it is notable based on reliable secondary sources, not that one or more editors believe its inclusion is important.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete The only section that isn't based on primary sources is trivial and irrelevant to the main section, which is based entirely on primary JW documents. It's a research paper outside our purview. Mangoe (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge While I believe it has some use, it isn't worth it's own page, and should be merged into a relevant article. Also needs to be updated (Penton's latest edition of Apocalypse Delayed would be useful, as he talks about it) and probably shortened. Vyselink (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While consensus is at this time in favor of keeping this material in one form or another but not in favor of keeping a separate article, I'm relisting this to discuss where to merge this content to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but I wouldn't object to a sensible merge – I suggest Jehovah's Witnesses and governments is not too far off). Firstly in my opinion many of the JW sources are not WP:PRIMARY. Their problem is that they are neither independent nor third party. So, to provide a neutral point of view we must balance them with other points of view or resort to sources which seem to be independent and reliable. Apart from the Guardian, Apocalypse Delayed: The Story of Jehovah's Witnesses and What the Watchtower Society Doesn't Want You to Know: A Glimpse Behind the Walls of the Kingdom Halls might provide suitable material that seems to be independently (and hopefully reliably) published. They both discuss the UN aspect at length. However, in neither case does the writing look dispassionate to me. The topic of the JW position concerning the UN is notable. The issue is do we have suitable material on which to base a balanced article without resorting to WP:SYNTHESIS and I think AFD is not the answer to this question. Thincat (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article—should be deleted? I think there are enough RS and I think the JW attitude towards the UN is a separate issue from their attitudes towards other governments. That is because of the "one world government" connotations of the UN. It is true that many primary sources are used, but these are JW publications. A publication like The Watchtower is a reliable source for what the Jehovah's Witnesses believe. Roches (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it hadn't occurred to me that including the UN alongside "governments" would be politically insensitive in some quarters. Thincat (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the objection to including it on Jehovah's Witnesses and governments is. It seems like a better target than the ones I suggested earlier in the thread. The details can be included in the article. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JW publications are certainly reliable in the context of presenting what JWs believe, but they are not suitable for indicating that their view of the UN is notable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeffro77 We have two articles in a reputable newspaper (cited) and two extended sections in non-JW books (above) all on the issue so it exceeds the GNG criteria. This doesn't mean we have to have an article, of course, it just means we may presume the topic is suitable for its own article. To my mind the strongest argument against an article might be that we do not have adequate material for writing an NPOV article because the material is too polarised. I don't think I agree with this but it is a reasonable point to make and the article needs to be handled very sensitively and carefully. Thincat (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki Well, I don't know but JW seem to be against governments and some people may regard the UN as an attempt at a super-government while other may think it is nothing of the sort. So, its inclusion in a "list" of governments might seem NPOV. Thincat (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merging to Jehovah's Witnesses and governments would be better than the earlier suggestions for merger targets, IMHO, if this article is not deemed worthy of a separate page. The UN is an association of governments, so the topic fits well enough to be covered in that article. – Fayenatic London 07:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a tricky one. The 2001 Guardian article definitely counts one to GNG. Independence of other sources is lacking, but this is a rather unique and pervasive policy position of the sect that is well documented here and noteworthy. Ultimately, WP is improved by this piece, although a second Guardian-type article would go far to cementing Keep status. Carrite (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing so notable about this JW doctrine that warrants its own article. The level of available secondary sources is certainly suitable for inclusion of the JW view of the UN in relevant articles such as Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs and maybe History of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Guardian article only addresses an exposé of what is considered a 'hypocritical' 'relationship' with the UN. Whilst from the JW perspective, the UN is an evil terrible 'beast' (and this is the reason for the Guardian article), a religious organisation subscribing to the UN DPI is not especially notable. As such, the assertion that the exposé would warrant an article would seem to be undue weight.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While it's not a notable entry to the everyday Christian, for Jehovahs Witnesses is a huge turnaround from previous doctrine. If merged into the parent article many may miss this very important point. Please leave it as stand alone. Seeing it on a website such as Wikipedia where everyone goes for information may make someone ask important questions about what they have been taught as fact since the joining of the UN is kept secret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writeswords (talk • contribs) 01:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The articles effect on JW's is COMPLETELY irrelevant. Their leaders are responsible for what they know about the religion. Vyselink (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability to JWs is not the benchmark for inclusion, and it is not Wikipedia's responsibility or purpose to 'advise' members of a particular denomination about 'secrets'. (And association with the UN DPI is not the same 'joining the UN'.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I rarely relist discussions for a third time but what looked like a near consensus to merge last week seems to have moved towards a Keep. So I am going to hope that a third relist will add enough clarity to allow us to close this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article on Jehovah's Witnesses doctrines. Due to their religious based refusal to vote, the political power of Jehovah's Witnesses is very minor, as opposed to Mormons who are officially encouraged to vote by Church leaders and politically control one state in the US and have very strong power in some other states, while also being a large portion of the population in several nations in Oceania. That said, the Jehovah's Witnesses have had a large incluence on religious freedom jurisprudence in the US, Canada and some other countries. However the real issue here is that this article is a content fork way to far down. This is basically a sub-set of Jevhovah's Witnesses beliefs, which is an article that might be legitimately divided. However the next step down would be to form an article on Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs on government and demand neutral, scholarly coverage. This is a difficult thing to undertake, since Jehovah's Witnesses views on government have been in part used to justify their being banned and persecuted in many countries, and it is a subject that lends attracts people misrepresenting its content. Lastly comparing the Mormon and Jehovah's Witnesses numbers does not work well. The LDS Church counts all children who were blessed until their ninth birthday, and counts all people who have been baptized unless they are excommunicated or have their names formally removed from the records of the Church. This accounts for about 95% of Mormons, or maybe a higher percentage. However it counts people who based on other studies do not view themselves as Mormons but have just not bothered to formally remove themselves from the Church records. On the other hand the Jehovah's Witnesses only report active publishers, which covers those people who actively engage in propagating the religion on a regular basis. There are many more people loosely affiliated with the movement who are not counted in this number.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. So Why 08:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Robert Coleman

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. I can't find any better sources. Seems like a non-notable musician to me. More opinions needed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- the article claims his compositions have been recorded by Naxos Records which is a major label. Admittedly that goes to the notability guidelines for "ensembles" rather than composers, but it suggests a certain degree of notability. Looking up the Naxos recording of five of his pieces for the album "Starry Night" he also conducted and the piece was played by the Frankfurt Radio Symphony Orchestra. There's a little more info on the Naxos site here: http://staging-naxos.aws.naxos.com/person/David_Robert_Coleman/208865.htm. It looks like he may be better known as a conductor. http://news.uzreport.uz/news_9_e_85412.html Crypticfirefly (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ORCAleak

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

A minor incident during a local election, with no further reporting or repercussions (failing the events notability criteria). The article's name was "coined" by the author's postings on other websites, and is riddled with NPOV issues. Sounder Bruce 23:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is true I coined the name. However, there will be Washington State Senate committee hearings about the matter. As such there has been and will be, "further reporting" and "repercussions". There has been no attempt to correct the article's ALLEGED "NPOV issues". This is an attempt to sweep under the rug a serious breach of ORCA card data, against state law as documented in the ORCAleak posting. JosefAbraham 00:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosefAbraham (talk • contribs)

It is also unhelpful that this article is not able to be linked to the ORCA card page since this controversy/scandal arises 100% from the ORCA card. Hopefully SounderBruce will allow this once the suggestion for deletion is removed please. JosefAbraham 00:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosefAbraham (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a neologism created for political effect, and it's not in common use. The news story it refers to isn't notable either. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in common use but certainly meets WikiPedia standards of notability in that it's using reputable media sources and source documents plus is a serious incident leading to a Washington State Senate investigation. Read the whole article. JosefAbraham JosefAbraham 16:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move In addition to the sources in the article, I found [37] and [38] and [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]. Most of these are Washington State, but not all. Clearly extensive regional coverage and I think there is enough sustained coverage here to establish notability. Article needs a different name because "ORCAleak" is not used in the coverage. MB 04:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:LASTING, the lack of recent sources indicates that the "scandal" had few, if any, lasting effects. The sources listed come from the initial findings (August 2016) and the report from the State Public Disclosure Commission (September 2016). No reporting in the lead-up to the election (November) or afterwards, amid other controversies related to the ballot measure over the last few months.
- Also, several of the links are heavily biased against Sound Transit and transit agencies in general (ShiftWA and Washington Policy are conservative think tanks, Washington Times is a conservative-run newspaper), or are simply repeating reporting from The Seattle Times. Sounder Bruce 04:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for coverage and found 16 more. You discount a few because they are "conservative". Well, since most main-stream media has a liberal bias, showing there is coverage across a range of sources is a good thing. Whether this was an attempt to influence an election, or an "innocent" mistake may not yet be proven. But there are some clear facts - the email addresses were improperly released. Your disparaging comments about "conservative" sources suggests you may not be maintaining a NPOV. MB 15:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MB. This doesn't need to be swept under the rug, it is an improper release of personal data about to go before public Washington State Senate hearings. Either I stand for civil liberties and right of privacy when my favourite people violate it (e.g. Sound Transit) or not at all. Sorry. JosefAbraham JosefAbraham JosefAbraham 20:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, main-stream media would be nice to have in this case. But a conservative think tank is hardly an acceptable, NPOV source for something political like mass transit. Yes, the e-mail addresses were improperly released, but the lack of ongoing coverage shows how minute this is. Hardly worth a mention on the Sound Transit 3 page (where I added it months ago), and not worth a standalone article. Sounder Bruce 01:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To MB and SounderBruce, I would be open to "2016 ORCA E-mail Addresses Leak". Seems to be in with the nomenclature used on the Wikileaks page. The leak was repeatedly brought up in the many Sound Transit 3 debates until November. My goal is "just the facts" and not to spin the verifiable facts. Especially as there will be State Senatorial hearings into the matter - [53]. JosefAbraham JosefAbraham 04:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, new comment. I disagree and agree with Sounder Bruce. First, I respectfully disagree "how minute this is" when there has initiated a State Senate investigation into ORCAleak or the inappropriate sharing of personal data from a database tracking personal movement, a clear violation of the right of privacy. Second, I vote to keep this article so the facts are tracked as the State Senate Investigation comes into play - an investigation that at the appropriate time when the hearings are scheduled I will make a WikiPedia page about so we can track the facts and stop the spin.

Which brings me to where I agree with SounderBruce - namely think tanks of any time should be a secondary source at best on WikiPedia. I know Mrs. Mariya Frost of Washington Policy Center personally, she is at the least very anti-light rail and most of her pieces are to push a very sharp POV. I cannot in good conscience cite Op-eds on a political scandal. JosefAbraham JosefAbraham 03:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the consensus could be that due to the press coverage and upcoming state legislative hearings, the article stays. With a new title and no citation links to the Washington Policy Center. Thoughts? JosefAbraham JosefAbraham 06:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Gospodinova

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. So Why 08:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mental fact

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

Essentially a coatrack for Searle; redirect to him, possibly? Anmccaff (talk) 06:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC) Anmccaff (talk) 06:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The terms seems some use, but I couldn't find any definition, and it seems it may be used in philosophy beyond Searle. But without at least a referenced definition this is WP:OR. Given notability is unclear, I lean towards weak delete due to OR issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I don't support a redirect to John Searle. The term appears to have some use by others, but the article needs improvement and I'm not sure what the generally-accepted definition is. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep G. E. Moore spent several pages defining and discussing mental facts in A Defense of Common Sense, pp. 10-13 ff., and mentioned them in several other pieces [54] [55]. More recently, several authors have briefly discussed the term in treatments of Moore's work, including Tully 1976, Hellie 2007, and Preti 2008. This would be enough for a short standalone article independent of Searle, although it would be nice to have somebody comparing their conceptions. FourViolas (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Short standalone article" runs afoul of WP:NOTDIC. Even with the article creaor's coatracking for Searle removed, it still doesn't belong except as part of a larger article. Also, as mentioned above, it's very easy to get cites for the usage before Moore was born. Anmccaff (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Merger discussions can be followed up on talk Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

88open

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

Does not meet WP:GNG Liam McM 01:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per The Alliance Revolution, Systems Integration, Computerworld, The Law of Unfair Competition Trademarks and Monopolies, Volume 3, and CommUNIXations. SL93 (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At the very least, 'The Alliance Revolution: The New Shape of Business Rivalry' seems to show this topic received several pages of prose discussion in a book, so it seems to meet GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Motorola 88000 since the sole purpose of the organization seems to be to promote that technology. Not independently notable but should be mentioned for historical significance despite failure in the long term. W Nowicki (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this meets WP:GNG as shown above. the sole purpose of the organization seems to be to promote that technology is no reason to delete an article. f e minist 15:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. So Why 07:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ziosk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment. Some older sources talk about Ziosk in the context of hotels/etc. Anyway, the tablet-menus in a restaurant seem notable. I am not sure if this particular one deserves an article, but honestly I couldn't find much about potential competitors. Still, to reduce spam/advertising concerns, a rewrite into a tablet menu or such could be considered (PS. I noticed we have Table ordering tablet). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Estopinan

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

Fails WP:BIO, Article is written in promotional and CV style Sulaimandaud (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 05:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 05:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Agree with nominator WP:PROMO fails WP:BIO. FITINDIA 05:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor promo piece. At least hire a more professional wiki-hack. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. So Why 08:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal & Pearce

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

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

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

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

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

Comment response - Robert McClenon- I did look at South African Music Awards to see whether that helps in clarifying the applicability of our policies - it doesn't. I tried the web-site which left me with the strong impression that anybody in South Africa can be nominated, including self-nominated, for an award. There is then some verification and initial adjudication process which produces a list of "Nominees". If included on that short list of nominees, I would expect to see a status of "Nominee" in the article table and not "Nominated". If this is the correct interpretation, then no notability can attend upon the status "nominated" although the winner of an award might well be considered notable as per the BAFTAs. Grammy etc. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The Legend of Zelda: The Hero of Time

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

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

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

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

Redirect and selective merge to The Legend of Zelda I ran a proquest news archive searches on "The Legend of Zelda: The Hero of Time ", then on "Legend of Zelda: The Hero of Time", then on "The Hero of Time" + Zelda. that last search turned up this review: Retira Nintendo filme sobre videojuego 'Zelda' Díaz, Jesús. Mural; Guadalajara, Mexico [Guadalajara, Mexico]04 Jan 2010: 2. [56] and this review on Engadget Upcoming 'Zelda' amiibo unlocks a challenge dungeon, Seppala, Timothy J. Engadget, New York: AOL Inc. Jan 21, 2016. [57] Not enough to support an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect. This is cool, but... where are the references? Like EMG above, I cannot find any. As such, this fails WP:GNG and sadly, does not deserve an independent early. Strange, though, that a geeky topic like this didn't generate any coverage, you'd think Kotaku etc. would be all over it. I found some coverage of an audiotrack with a similar name ([58]), but I think that's what we are discussing here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is about a fan film, not the phrase "hero of time", which is used in other capacities in the series. The question is whether this phrase is worth redirecting (and covering) in the main article, and based on the above sourcing (+ this source), no, it is not worth mentioning or redirecting. (Further, a redirect would be inappropriate if the fan film was not mentioned in the article, which it is not and should not.) Choosing whether to redirect Hero of time there is a different, but more apt consideration based on the other sources found above. czar 05:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Transformation of culture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I came close to closing this as a no-consensus given that opinions are all over the place. But let's give it another week and hope for consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —MRD 20 14 01:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rob McEwen

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

Scrub for neutrality but keep. The article definitely needs sourcing repair and a cleanup for WP:NPOV, but there are credible notability claims — including being appointed to the Order of Canada, which is always valid grounds for an article in and of itself so long as there's some genuine substance and sourcing provided for what they did to get there. Then there's the philanthropy thing — which admittedly this article misses as written, but our article on the McEwen School of Architecture will make clearer. Article needs work, yes, but the base notability is there. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but as Bearcat notes, this needs to be rewritten. In addition to the Order of Canada, a quick google search reveals that this guy is one of the top 100 richest people in Canada http://www.canadianbusiness.com/lists-and-rankings/richest-people/rich-100-rob-mcewen/ and has been the subject of some significant news coverage, e.g. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/careers-leadership/rob-mcewen-mining-magnate-with-a-vision/article546293/?page=all There should be no problem finding good, verifiable info on this guy. Crypticfirefly (talk) 02:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Order of Canada is indicative of notability. The current version of the article is somewhat neutral, while sourcing has been improved. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Netgear DGN2200 (series)

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

Article has no encyclopedic content; it is entirely a specification list. WP is not a technical manual. There is no indication of notability. Searching does turn up plenty of hits, mostly routine listings of the product at retailer websites and such. MB 04:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nominator Sulaimandaud (talk) 05:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:G4 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicolas M. Chaillan). — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Chaillan

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

References are lacking in substance. They consist of basic quotes, articles that fail to mention article subject, and 404 pages. reddogsix (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Speedy Keep': The subject has over 34 references. I did fix the 404 link. Every single references mentions the subject. The simple fact that he is the Chief Architect of DHS is notable enough. I'm getting 7 articles from DHS office to prove his notability. Please give me some time to finish the article. His 20M fund is also notable. Not to mention he is 32! There is no reason to delete the article before I am finished correcting it. I took over this work and I will get it done. Medical87 (talk) 04:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Medical87: Can you please explain this above statement I took over this work and I will get it done could you please disclose if this is a WP:PAID article or not and if you in anyway are connected, employed or work for the subject in question. Thank you. FITINDIA 08:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I didn't mean I am getting paid I meant I took over this page to have his DHS work integrated into the page. I am not affiliated with the subject in any way; I do work in Cybersecurity in the United States but I have no conflict. Medical87 (talk) 12:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 04:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 04:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 04:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This was deleted less than a month ago through this process at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nicolas_M._Chaillan. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I couldn't login as I am at home but just wanted to say that I am actually taking over this page and adding 7 references from DHS which addresses why the page was put for deletion before. I just need two weeks to finish working on the new sections... Medical87 (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikijob

AfDs for this article:

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

Stumbled upon this one at Special:Random. This was previously listed at AfD and there was no consensus to delete. The article was created for promotional purposes; that much is clear. It relies on paid content for some of its sources, thereby managing to squeak by in 2008. See [59] for instance. Also note that the site is on Wikipedia's spam blacklist. —Guan aco 03:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 04:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 04:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 04:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "WikiJob features several of the FTSE100 and Times Top 100 graduate recruiters, including Deustche Bank, Citigroup, Accenture, Deloitte, KPMG,PwC, Linklaters, Freshfields, Credit Suisse, Barclays and the Financial Services Authority (FSA)"

there you go promotional article Sulaimandaud (talk) 05:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD 20 14 01:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- spam & WP:ADVOCACY on an unremarkable web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Shchelkovo Highway police station attack

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

Nearly 10 months removed, I think it can be determined that this attack is a WP:NOTNEWS event. WP:ROUTINE coverage was sustained for about 3 days (mostly to mention ISIL's claim of responsibility) but no WP:LASTING impact has been established. Yes, this was covered by the media but according to WP:GEOSCOPE there needs to be a long-term affect on the area. This was tragic but please stick to policy. A redirect to a relevant list is also another option. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The premise is wrong. For instance, the wikipedia entry includes a WP:RS from a Swiss newspaper from November 2016, i.e. there was international coverage even 3 months after the attack.XavierItzm (talk) 04:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This event was widely discussed in the Russian media. Moreover, this attack was reported by BBC, Washington Post, Reuters. The article has this international WP:RS. --TonyaJaneMelbourne (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per others, seems to be clear it meets GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - I guess WP:NOTNEWS is a dead policy.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of quotes featuring Berlin

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

As the title suggests, this is a collection of quotes about the city of Berlin. However, WP:NOTQUOTE says, "Wikipedia articles are not ... Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote." In fact, Wikiquote already has a page of quotes about Berlin. So this page is not appropriate for the encyclopedia. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wrong medium for such things. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a more extensive collection of quotes than does the corresponding Wikiequote page at q:Berlin, so this material should be transwikied to Wikiquote for potential merge per the procedure spelled out at q:Help:Transwiki. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wrong medium. Not suited to Wikipedia. Consider trans-Wiki. Ajf773 (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (a dissenting view). I think "Quotations about Berlin" is a better title, but I do not support deletion. Yes, there is WP:NOTQUOTE, but I feel that is more intended towards collections of witty aphorisms on diverse topics. Here, we do not have a "repository of loosely associated topics." This article is limited to quotations about Berlin. Berlin is an important world city, but its history means that some of the quotes bear meaning beyond that of the city itself; I mean "Ich bin ein Berliner" and "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!". All that said, Wikiquote may be a more desirable place for the quotations, though I still do not object to its presence in mainspace.Roches (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTQUOTE. I don't see any way to pussyfoot around this: we're not Wikiquote and we're not going to be. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTQUOTE and above. --Lockley (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTQUOTE. In theory, one could compile such a list for absolutely any subject at all — and while I'll grant that not all possible lists would contain a quote as iconic as Ich bin ein Berliner, that's not in and of itself a reason why Berlin should count as a special case. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTQUOTE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE - GretLomborg (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. So Why 08:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Girls of FHM

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

Non notable and very short lived pop act, Although they covered the song Da Ya Think I'm Sexy? the article makes no reference to them nor is there anything online, Ofcourse there could be sources offline however that would be a wild guess and I were to put money on it I'd say there wasn't any sources offline, Fails NMUSIC & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 02:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Top ten single clearly satisfies WP:MUSIC#2 (even if The Guardian thinks this charity single is gruesome). duffbeerforme (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of NMUSIC it states and I quote "Where possible, composers or lyricists with insufficient verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article should be merged into the article about their work. When a composer or lyricist is known for multiple works, such a merger may not be possible." - Obviously the band have insufficient verifiable material,

If desired I could add a one liner to the song article and this could be redirected however as it stands the band aren't notable (sure their song reached a top ten but that's no different to someone staring in a known film - In short reliable sources are needed which at present there are none), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 02:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On your quote "Where possible, composers or lyricists ..." They are not composers or lyricists. Yes, reliable sources are needed and reliable sources exist. A merge may possibly be a good idea, either to the song or to FHM, but which? A merge does not need deletion. A small stub seems like a good solution. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good point I'm not sure why I thought they were but reading the guideline again it does state notability is not inherited etc etc, Well personally I think merging to the song would be better - Something like "Da Ya Think I'm Sexy?" was also covered by novelty pop act The Girls of FHM in 2004" or something to that effect, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 20:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Shafer

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

Shameless self-promotion from two COI editors. Content suggests notability, google search does not throw anything up that supports that notion. Subject has written some books which only give generic results (amazon & google book listings). There don't seem to be any independent sources discussing the author or their works. Rayman60 (talk) 02:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DElete. No pass of WP:Prof on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--TM 10:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The person has recently passed away. Self promotion is no longer in order. The person is indeed an important technology author. Consensus on this exists in xTalk and Apple communities. It is useful to be able to look up the person later, if anyone finds one of his books or forum messages and wants to know more about him. The person has authored books in multiple fields, rather than "only" HyperCard or "only" Apple. There is ample reason to keep the entry. If no more votes in favour of deletion are posted here within the next 6 months, I propose to lift the Afd status and keep the article. Xtalkprogrammer (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe the previous commenter's vote should be invalidated due to lack of understanding of notability and the AfD process. Nothing concrete to support the viewpoint (e.g. sources, coverage, references), just a hunch that the person is sort of worthy of an article based on their feelings of who should have an article (i.e. outside of defined notability guidelines which exist for this very reason). Rayman60 (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about my vote as such, but no one can deny that self-promotion (see above) can no longer be an argument in the discussion. Xtalkprogrammer (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just because the person is dead does not mean the article is no longer an act in self promotion. The very fact that they died but the article still lists them as living shows they are not very notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 02:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chakkittayil Udayakumar

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

I found no coverage and the article is unreferenced. SL93 (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability found in Google Searches. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 talk contribs 01:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above findings. Needs refs Legacypac (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Sulaimandaud (talk) 05:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 07:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yash Aradhya

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

WP:NMOTORSPORT. The driver who even haven't contested in any series other than karting. Which mean he is can't be considered as professional now. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with Corvus tristis Sulaimandaud (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to any reviewing admin This article has been previously Proded and is therefor ineligible for "soft delete." -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge Density

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

To small context to have its own article. merge to knowledge graph Sulaimandaud (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, WP:LEAD too short to be a WP:independent article, merge those information to Ontology (information science) article is the advisable way. SA 13 Bro (talk) 06:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete alas, another article created as the first (and so far only?) edit of a poor new user. When will we ever learn that letting new users create articles without review is not a good idea? A general concept (not proper noun) would not use capital letters anyway. W Nowicki (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. In the absence of any participation after being relisted and with no evidence of any previously contested deletion I am treating this as an expired Prod. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Dytsevich

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

This article doesn't meet the notability guidelines of actors and models as he is not covered in reliable Russian sources. Marvellous Spider-Man 08:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete WP:REFUND applies. In the absence of any participation after being relisted and with no evidence of any previously contested deletion I am treating this as an expired Prod. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman Smith (singer)

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Marvellous Spider-Man 08:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that there is insufficient coverage to establish WP:N. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Truly Responsive Web Design

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

There are some pages, but I didn't find any deep research or definition of this. Most references are part of Responsive Web Design articles. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ran some searches, this doesn't seem to be an actual term. The term is "Responsive Web Design", truly is added in he everyday sense of usage, but "Truly Responsive Web Design" it's not a distinct concept that has been written about. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete One GScholar hit == not a term-of-art. Mangoe (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unsourced original research and may not even exist. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was convert to disambiguation page. So Why 07:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Koloma

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

Too short to be useful as a standalone article, and completely unreferenced. I'm not even entirely sure that it exists because it doesn't have an ISO 15924 code, although it is mentioned here and there online. Unless better references are found, it should be at most mentioned in the Kokborok article. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources on google books, so it's conceivable that someone might create a decent article at some point. Until that happens, Kokborok language#Script is the place where this should (and already is) mentioned, so redirecting there would be sensible. However, in addition to the script, there's also Koloma, California and none of the two seems to be a WP:PTOPIC, so Koloma should be a disambiguation page per WP:2DABS. – Uanfala 21:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to a dab page until such time as there is more than a one-line article about the script. There's the script (which can be kept verbatim as a dab entry), Koloma, California and a district of Conakry, Guinea, plus a See also entry (Coloma (disambiguation)). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe Koloma, California should be a redirect to Coloma, California. That change may affect any disambiguation page. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. They're two different, though related, places. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources provided. I see primarily references to a non-notable song called "kokbrok" by a band Koloma when I search "koloma kokborok". [60] References such as [61] that I would expect to mention it do not. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Utah's 3rd congressional district special election, 2017#Republican primary. (non-admin closure) f e minist 15:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tanner Ainge

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

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

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

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

WP:BLP of a person whose only substantive notability claim to date is being a candidate in the primary for a future election. As always, this is not a claim that passes WP:NPOL in and of itself -- if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to get an article out of the election itself. The media coverage shown here is not strongly demonstrating that his candidacy is more notable than the norm, either -- it's virtually all local to either the district where he's a candidate, or the city where his dad was prominent enough that it's newsworthy because dad rather than because Tanner. (And because notability is not inherited, the fact that he's the son of someone notable does not make him notable in and of itself either.) And even on volume of sourcing this isn't showing anything more than every candidate in any election could always show. In fact, I would have speedied this, except that this is the third time it's been recreated after having already been speedied twice. No prejudice against recreation on or after November 7 if he wins the special election, but nothing stated or sourced here earns him an article today. Restoring the redirect, per Muboshgu, would also be acceptable — but whether deleted or redirected, the title should probably be salted given the repeated recreations. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either Danny Ainge#Personal life or Utah's 3rd congressional district special election, 2017#Republican primary. Why people insist on making these redirects I create into articles is beyond me. He has no case for GNG or NPOL. But, he is a valid search term based on his candidacy and lineage. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per GNG. Google News immediately throws up multiple (though admittedly fewer than I'd like) independent RS focusing on him (there's even an RS documenting that the 'national media' are focusing on him), incl. one as geographically farflung as the New Zealand Herald. Given relatively small number of sources and their focus on his candidacy and paternity, redirecting to his father's article might be acceptable, with the info there, but that he's received significant coverage for the "wrong" reasons (and offshoots of that argument) does not a compelling case make. Advocata (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Independent news coverage in the special election. KingAntenor (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every candidate in every special election always generates news coverage, because covering local politics is local media's job. So such coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE, and cannot be used to mount a WP:GNG claim, in and of itself, unless it (a) explodes to a volume wildly out of proportion to what's simply expected to exist (i.e. the media firestorm that swallowed Christine O'Donnell), or (b) it demonstrates, by virtue of the fact that he was already getting coverage in other contexts besides the election, that he already passed GNG for some other reason before being a candidate. Wikipedia's notability standards for politicians, however, are expressly designed to prevent Wikipedia from turning into a repository of unelected political candidates' campaign brochures, so the mere fact that coverage exists in the context of the election itself does not automatically make someone notable for our purposes — because coverage in that context never, ever, ever fails to exist for anyone. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a glorified CV on an non-elected candidate. Per prior outcomes, such articles are routinely deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Tanner Ainge is not just one of many candidates. He is in a head-to-head race in a special election that will soon gain much national attention — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blovin93 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Blovin93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The number of candidates does not impact notability. Also, as a factual correction I'd like to note he is one of sixteen declared candidates (13 R, 3 D). Signed, Mpen320 (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2017 (CT)

Redirect to Utah's 3rd congressional district special election, 2017. His only "claim to fame" is being a candidate in an election (which is not inherently notable) and being the offspring of a notable person (which is not inherently notable). This reeks of someone putting this up as free publicity for a congressional campaign. I fully agree with Bearcat on all points. Signed, Mpen320 (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2017 (CST)
"Keep" -- Tanner Ainge is a legitimate candidate in the GOP 3rd District Primary. ^[1] Articles written beforehand should not be in consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethgordonw (talk • contribs) 19:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865681816/GOP-3rd-District-primary-could-be-a-first-with-more-than-2-candidates.html

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

Being a candidate, "legitimate" or otherwise, in a primary is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself. The only two ways a candidate can get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate, without having to win the election first, are (a) they can be shown and properly sourced as having already cleared some other notability criterion for some other reason completely independent of the campaign coverage, or (b) the campaign coverage explodes far out of proportion to what could be routinely expected to always exist for every candidate in any election, such as what happened to Christine O'Donnell in 2010 (i.e. her article cites over 160 sources, because the coverage globalized into a firestorm.) Neither of those conditions is being shown here at all. (And just for clarity, note that I placed "legitimate" in quotation marks not because I'm calling Ainge's legitimacy as a candidate into question, but because per WP:NPOV it's not Wikipedia's role to decide whether any candidate in any election is a "legitimate" one or not — either they are a candidate or they're not, the end, and no candidate gets treated differently than any other candidate on the basis of subjective interpretations of their legitimacy.) Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. Plenty of RS coverage.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not WP:INHERITed. Also doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Utah's 3rd congressional district special election, 2017. The community consensus has been that being a candidate for the national legislature is not a claim to meet WP:Politician or WP:GNG. The current consensus is that electoral campaigns are events and the electoral contest is notable, while the individual participants are not (unless they meet WP:Politician or WP:GNG independent of the campaign or subject to coverage that is "far" out of proportion to what is expected). For subjects running for the U.S. Congress, a redirect is appropriate to the page about the specific race in question. --Enos733 (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Utah's 3rd congressional district special election, 2017. Agree with argumentation laid out by Enos733. Sagecandor (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Utah's 3rd congressional district special election, 2017#Republican primary. This article appears to have been written as a soft campaign piece: if this kind of article were allowed, every candidate would have their own article. Per the policies cited by Enos733, should be merged. Lolinder (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice against a future renomination, though I would suggest a reasonable intermission before doing so given this is the 2nd AfD to end this way. However, after two relists and with the sole vote being a "likely Keep" it's time to move on. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seyed Mohammad Hosseini (presenter)

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

Searching shows that this showman fails the notability guidelines. First AfD was closed as no consensus. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 17:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Likely keep - This is one I don't have time to do the research on so I went straight to YouTube to see the action. There's a sizable amount there. He certainly has a significant following. He did appear in a film by upcoming Iranian director, Ali Zamani Esmati, Kochehaye Barik aka Narrow Alleys. Been on some other shows as well. Karl Twist (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE of course Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Demetra Kolla

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

Does not seem to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 17:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 02:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Time line: One Rank One Pension (OROP) 1973-2013

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

I don't think that the separation is required, the article section on Chronology can be merged with this. Anyways the entire merged article would be less than the max allowed limit. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 18:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 18:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 18:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- is the proposal to redirect / merge with One Rank One Pension Scheme? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think delete makes sense, per WP:PRESERVE, and would prefer this article trimmed. If an encyclopedic tone can be maintained and the timeline's length remains significant, it seems like a valid fork of the OROP article. If it is trimmed enough, then perhaps put it back into that article (this article was split off last December, I think). Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree it may be best to abridge the article on 'OROP time line 1973 -2013' and put it back in the article on OROP from which it had been split. Thanks. Jnanaskanda^(Talk)
~~Merge~~ Delete ~~back into One Rank One Pension in severely trimmed form.~~ This is far too detailed and lacks compliance with WP:MOS ~~but it has more than enough WP:RS citations to be notable, which is all that really matters here.~~ Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC) On further review, nearly every reliable source cited is duplicated from the parent article, which means that there aren't enough sources to sustain independent notability and all text that could be merged is basically there already. Nothing to save through merger. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 23:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. without merging. The detailed content in the main article is already excessive, unencyclopedic , and blatantly POV. Adding any of this would make it yet worse: all of the associated articles are a WP:Walled garden constituting a promotional effort for increased retirement pay for Indian military. Regardless of whether in equity they ought to be entitled to it, WP is not the place for advocacy of a cause. DGG ( talk ) 09:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cant see anything of note in here that is not included in the One Rank, One Pension article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- trivial & would not improve a target article if any. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: merging the information here would simply overwhelm the main article with a level of detail that seems unwarranted. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While there appears to have been a good effort at cleaning up some of the FIXIT problems with the article, consensus seems to be that notability has not been established. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ese Stacey

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

There are multiple reasons I am putting this up for AfD. First, this biography is largely unreferenced, with only one or two sentences being supported by each reference. Second, the first sentence is kind of promotional, especially the "as a means of improving people's lives". Third, this article is not properly structured, although I think that this should have little impact on the decision to delete or not. Overall, this culminates in the fact that I do not regard this as an article that should appear in Wikipedia in its current state. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 23:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per the nomination - WP:SOAP, but also WP:TNT if notability can be somehow found. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 23:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a newbie. This was my first article and was published accidentally before I had cleaned it up. It has been amended, taking on board useful suggestions as to how the article could be improved, including by complying with the house style and guidelines and improving the referencing. There are now almost two dozen references. I'm happy to be helped make this an even better piece about a notable black woman role model from a working class background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio Maceo (talk • contribs) 01:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
marginal keep I spent some time and pretty much completely re-did this, so the TNT is addressed. There was a bunch of unsourced content that just cannot be in WP per WP:BLP and WP:V. I think there is just enough left to keep, but it is a close call. I would not be surprised if others !vote delete. Jytdog (talk) 03:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided Still needs clean up. Still primary research and inappropriate refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A good job has been done cleaning this up and addressing the TNT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio Maceo (talk • contribs) 13:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Antonio Maceo. Newimpartial (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In light of the cleanup....
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I reviewed the references and found nothing other than business listings and peripheral references. Nothing indicate that the subject is notable. Even the article does not suggest that the subject is notable.--Rpclod (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as per @Rpclod: I think that the sources are still sketchy and even with this re-write it smells of WP:PROMO. The fact that it is worth mentioning that she is a Bupa physician and is thus referenced with a WP:PRIMARY source just shows that there is little to say. A couple of papers are not enough to pass WP:ACADEMIC, and the notablility of academics in general has been put into question recently on Wikipedia. A lack of independent and reliable sources still make me think this individual does not meet WP:GNG for now. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 21:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also @Jytdog: did a wonderful job with the clean-up, but notability cannot be manufacured. It would be wonderful if every nice person who is a rolemodel could have this sort of recognition, but we have to remember that WP:GNG is clear on the notability guidelines. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 21:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 23:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the cleanup may have dealt to some exgent with promotionalism , but it has not dealt with the lack of notability. The scientific work is negligible--her major paper has been cited only27 ties,a.c Google scholar. the books are either self published or published by an extremely minor publisher of review books for students [62]. There's no other notability -- the BBC appearance is not sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 09:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 06:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Augusta, Indianapolis, Indiana

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

Neighborhoods are generally not notable unless there it sufficient independent coverage in RS to meet GNG. Otherwise, this neighborhood should be mentioned in Pike Township, Marion County, Indiana. No objection to Merge/Redirect. MB 01:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Pike Township, Marion County, Indiana. --Lockley (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This historic former village meets WP:GEOLAND as a legally-recognized populated place, as per this reliable source, as well as other sources that attest to it being a legally-recognized place: [63], [64]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- NA1000, I don't see how those sources prove that this is "legally recognized"--I think you are reaching too far, and you're probably safe enough already when arguing GNG. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I interpret "formerly populated" places to be things that are no longer populated, like "ghost towns". This place is still populated and it is now a neighborhood of a larger place. If it had sufficient notability for a stand-alone article, it certainly should have one. But otherwise, a neighborhood is covered under the "legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it" per GEOLAND. And it turns out that there is already a separate article on the New Augusta Historic District, so in this case any content in this article not already in the NRHP article, if any, should be merged there. MB 02:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Source #2 in my !vote above was published in 1866 by the Adjunct General of the State of Indiana, and source #3 is The National Gazetteer of the United States of America, which was published in 1988 by the United States Government Publishing Office. The first source is published by the National Park Service, which is an agency of United States Department of the Interior, and describes the locale (in part) as

... a small village called Augusta developed at the corner of present-day 71st and Michigan Road. With plenty of travelers using Michigan Road, the small village grew to have general stores, a post office, and other essentials."

These come across as valid, legally-authoritative sources to me. For example, the United States Government Publishing Office "prints and binds documents produced by and for the federal government" (italic emphasis mine). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But this doesn't address my comment at all. It may have been a village at one time, but now it is part of Indianapolis. There are dozens or maybe hundreds of former villages that are now part of NYC and they don't all have individual articles. See Blissville, Queens as an example. MB 02:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MB: You state in your comment above that "a neighborhood is covered under the "legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it" per GEOLAND". However, this phrasing is under point #2 of WP:GEOLAND for Populated places without legal recognition (italic emphasis mine). Per my !vote and commentary above, I view this former village and neighborhood as falling under point #1, for Populated, legally recognized places (italic emphasis mine). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This IS a populated place without legal recognition, in my view. It may have been legally recognized as a village before it was swallowed up by Indianapolis, but it then lost that status. It is now just a neighborhood of the city, which is not legally recognized. This section of GEOLAND is often interpreted differently by different editors. MB 03:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A possible merge target would be New Augusta Historic District. Carrite (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:GEOLAND. DrStrauss talk 21:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per Northamerica1000 above. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To further discuss whether to keep as is or merge somewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I originally nominated this, I was unaware of New Augusta Historic District. Since this topic is clearly notable due to its historic designation and is covered in that article, we don't need two articles on the same place. ~~The article should be merged into New Augusta Historic District.~~ MB 15:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be the same place. The New Augusta Historic District article states that the New Augusta Historic District "...is located east of Augusta", although this is presently unsourced in the article. If the New Augusta Historic District is located east of Augusta, Augusta is not the New Augusta Historic District. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. The historic district is "New Augusta" and is located 1.5 miles east of "Old Augusta" (the topic of this article). They are different places. So I am back to "Old Augusta", which was apparently mostly abandoned as the people/businesses there followed the railroad east in 1852, being merged into either Indianapolis or Pike Township, Marion County, Indiana. MB 03:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The only reference on this page (other than a link to Google Maps) is to [65] which describes the New Augusta Historic District. I support a merge. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the evidence given in this AfD, this is a formally recognized albeit former place and there is sufficient information (at least the location and one fact) to have a separate article. Unscintillating (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion would benefit from a third relist, consensus is not clear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is better than a merge per NorthAmerican. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Northamerica. Passes WP:GEOLAND. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (Russia and Southeastern Europe)

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

We already have List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network and so we don't need separate articles - Sources so far in the article are extremely poor and unfortunately I cannot find any better, Fails NOTTVGUIDE (to a certain extent) and GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 01:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per:

I would also add this one as a second nomination:

- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network Arabic
Delete all All copies of the main article, and we can always mention what CN shows they don't broadcast in their individual articles. Nate • (chatter) 02:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here Category:Lists of Cartoon Network television series shows every other list of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network article specific to region. Ajf773 (talk) 05:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, would be better as a category. DrStrauss talk 21:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 08:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anastagia Pierre

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

Subject has won a lot of titles and appeared on a reality tv show, but there is no evidence (in the article or through extensive google searches) of significant coverage in reliable third party sources. There are a lot of hits but they are mainly fluff pieces about her meeting Prince Harry in a one-off encounter and I can't see how that contributes to notability. Bahamas Weekly articles seem largely to have been provided by the Miss Bahamas Organization and thus can't be considered independent. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unremarkable pageant contestant. Per prior outcomes, such articles are routinely deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several independent sources with significant coverage The Cayman Reporter, Breaking Travel News (where she co-hosted the World Travel Awards), IMDb (appeared in HBO "Ballers"); and the fact that it was a published story in major news outlets in regards to Prince Harry, thus WP:GNG is met, so the more specific notability guidelines don't matter. The Miss America Bahamas and newspapers of the Bahamas are too separate entitles as well and are third-parties; similar to articles written in the Cayman Islands, which is a separate geographical entity. Nom admits that "she has has won a lot of titles and appeared on a reality tv show", furthering GNG. Savvyjack23 (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but those claims to evidence of notability are laughable. The Cayman Reporter article is about someone else entirely and simply name drops Pierre as a trainer. Ditto the Breaking Travel News (also not a reliable source) - being name dropped as a host of an event is not significant coverage nor does hosting that event make her notable. The Prince Harry thing is WP:BLP1E if ever I saw a more perfect example of it. IMDB is not a source that can establish notability. If the articles in the Bahamas news are simply entries provided by the Miss Bahamas Org rather than actual news they cannot be considered independent either. Lots of people win pageant titles and appear on reality tv shows, and as K.e.coffman says, they are routinely deleted or redirected. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Not notable (did not place in Miss Universe pageant). She failed to meet WP:GNG.--Richie Campbell (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable perennial Beauty pageant contestant who never reached a level of notability. Name dropping is not the same as significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deanna Johnston

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

Non-notable reality tv personality/actor. No evidence (in the article or through extensive google searches) of significant coverage in reliable third party sources. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet notability guidelines under WP:BIO. Does not have significant coverage in third-party sources; the top google hits are for another person with the same name.PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not true. This Deanna Johnston with a T is still the top Google response. Did you mistype?JefferShip (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry JefferShip but yet again you are showing a complete lack of understanding of Wikipedia's WP:NOTE and WP:BIO guidelines. I strongly recommend you read those and WP:RS --- PageantUpdater (talk) 05:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NPERSON and WP:GNG. The article has only one source, and the argument that something is a top hit on Google adds nothing to its notability. DrStrauss talk 21:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Red Couture

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

Contest PROD (which was removed with a tirade against "Wikipedia staff"). The subject is a drag performer and host, however the only references provided confirm the existence of the show she hosts. The "Filmography" section contains a list of other performers who appear to have been on the show in the past, which perhaps points to notability for the show itself, but not necessarily the host. I note, too, that this comes uncomfortably close to being an unsourced BLP BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a professional wiki editor. All I know is that this person is just as famous as all the RuPaul drag queens and moreso. And if you people would get a damn life and research before deleting things....it would be nice. All you do is anger people that have contributed for over a decade! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photolarry (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:RS. I can't find any good ones, and all the existing sources are connected or likely connected to the subject (I believe anyone can add/edit entries on IMDB). - GretLomborg (talk) 04:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 14:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations on Islam

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

A collection of quotes, negative in tone and thoroughly worthless as an encyclopedic article. This is much more appropriate for Wikiquote and not Wikipedia. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the claim made by the user 'Chrissymad' above, I present this -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI%27s_100_Years...100_Movie_Quotes

This page lists the top 100 movie quotations in American cinema.

Also this - List of quotes featuring Berlin -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_quotes_featuring_Berlin

Therefore, there is no violation. Wikipedia does list quotations.

Also, this page lists a significant number of quotes that are exceedingly useful and beneficial in regard to the knowledge of the readers, as such it is a highly productive page.

PS - Feel free to add positive quotations. I would welcome them. In fact, I am looking forward to add them myself once I find proper sources. Probity22 (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTQUOTE says, "Wikipedia articles are not ... Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations .... If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote." This collection of quotes already has a thematic counterpart at Wikiquote:Islam (and see also Wikiquote:Category:Islam for related topics). The situation with AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes is different, as that is a notable list (voted and ranked by a group of 1,500 voters selected by a major organization, and then announced on a three-hour nationally broadcast television special); that is, the list itself is notable. I have nominated List of quotes featuring Berlin for deletion because it doesn't belong in Wikipedia either. (I would also note that this list of quotations about Islam is poorly organized, being listed alphabetically by the speaker's first name, but that's not worth being concerned about given that the entire article ought to be deleted.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ridiculously indiscriminate. How many quotes qualify for such a broad topic? Thousands? Tens of thousands? More? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete 1] Regarding the claim by Metropolitan90 above, it states - are not ... Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics.

-- Loosely associated topics The topic that I am associating it with is not loosely associated. It will be associated with the Islam series.

2] In addition, it states - Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content. So the content being Islam, the article can serve as the function of its directory on quotations.

3] I do not think it is fair that such is the desperation to remove this article, that you remove another article as well. One can see your love and admiration for Islam. But we don't need to sacrifice another article to remove this one. Simply add positive quotes and defend Islam if that is what you want. Of course, goes without saying, if that article is not removed, then it makes no sense that this one is removed. And you are welcome to sort the list in whatever order you wish. Probity22 (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probity22 There are so many things to address with your statements but I'm going to start with how patently ridiculous number 3 is. One can see your love and admiration for Islam. But we don't need to sacrifice another article to remove this one. This is not what AfD is about and certainly not what Wikipedia is about. My personal feelings on a subject are completely irrelevant and do not come into play when I nominate something for deletion and my bias is that I dislike non-encyclopedic content and garbage. This is not encyclopedic and is an indiscriminate list of quotes with little or no encyclopedic value and this just simply is not the appropriate place for it, per the several guidelines and policies you've been linked to. And adding quotes that would balance it out won't make it any better, just a larger mess of non-encyclopedic content.

With regard to number 2: please re-read the links you've been given.

Number one: you fail to acknowledge that in that same sentence you've quoted it is followed by If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTQUOTE tells us exactly why this does not belong in Wikipedia. And even if the severe current bias were rectified, it would still be a case of original research. --bonadea contributions talk 13:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As mentioned, it does not meet WP:NOTQUOTE, which specifically says Wikipedia is not for lists of quotes. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that is, a collection of articles providing facts on different topics; it is not a collection of primary sources or other people's quotations. An encyclopedia is not a dictionary of quotations. Arguing over the closeness of the association is irrelevant, but it could be pointed out that the quotations are from a wide range of people, countries, historical periods, and attitudes, and while an individual person or closely-connected group's religious beliefs may be notable, the topic of what everybody ever says about Islam is far more loosely connected than that. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By depriving the viewers of such extensive knowledge, we are doing a disservice to the viewers. I would accept any decision of course, but we all know that this statement is true -

This page only adds to the knowledge base of wikipedia, and hence is highly productive and beneficial. It does not take away anything from wikipedia. It is merely a comprehensive addition, which would greatly help all those who come across it.

I stand by my position. The rest is up to the community. Probity22 (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probity22 Please see WP:POINT. Also with regard to the Berlin page - there are literally millions of articles on Wikipedia. Millions. No human being could reasonably look at every single one. You should really reconsidering amending your last edit as you're making some pretty incredible accusations and using Wikipedia as a soapbox. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Probity22 has been warned re not assuming good faith. Based on their latest post above, it looks like the article was created as a soapbox, which is yet another reason to delete it (speedily, for preference). --bonadea contributions talk 15:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete or transwiki the choice of quotes here looks to be original research, and there will be no end to the list. A place for this content would be on Wikiquote, so transwiki is possible.. I was hoping there would be on a book called this, but not so. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This appears to be a list of quotes attacking Islam, and not an attempt at developing a genuine encyclopedia article. Given the fundamental problems with how it was assembled (lack of attempts to provide a neutral position on selection of quotes, etc), I disagree strongly about transwiking it: that would just export the problem elsewhere. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is the very definition of original research. Dig up quotes supporting a POV, voilá! Carrite (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G10 as an attack page "that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject". --Lockley (talk) 05:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - fails NPOV, NOR, and NOT. Transwiki to wikiquote would be appropriate if Probity22 was interested in moving the material. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not on multiple levels. It's just a pointless collection of quotes. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom WP:SNOW. In addition to all the other concerns, this fails WP:SOAP and WP:LIST. We are not a webhost for anybody for or against a religion; we are a nonsectarian charity and could lose our tax-exempt status if we stray too far from our core mission. FWIW, I am an Episcopalian, and have friends who happen to be Moslem. In developmental psychology, it is known that 13 year old girls focus on "fairness" (Wood, 2007). Bearian (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.deseretnews.com/article/865681816/GOP-3rd-District-primary-could-be-a-first-with-more-than-2-candidates.html

[1]