Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 December	9 December >

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 non-admin closure of incomplete AfD per WP:PCLOSE and Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Appropriate_closure. (AfD incomplete. Rationale not expanded. Notices not placed. Subject seems to meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:ANYBIO. See also [1]) Guliolopez (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable for any reason.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Impulsion (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Speedied after I tagged it (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Deiss

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

Article does not appear to meet WP:BIO, and seems wholly promotional in nature. Sources refer to the subject's own website or to one intellectually very closed-related site. Google does not reveal any multiple independent secondary sources, as would be expected of a living person of genuine note. (The company of which the subject is CEO does not seem notable enough to have warranted a Wikipedia article.) The content is well-written, but in the same style as that of the digital marketers: self-promotional, but devoid of any content of real note. Parkywiki (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Winkler

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO for lack of available sources. - Mr X 23:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Limited sources (mostly mentions in passing) for anything constructive; Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 01:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Quis separabit? 02:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG requires multiple sources, one source is not enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 05:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glam Philippines

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

All of the reference links in the article (originally written in 2010) now seem to be dead, and I couldn't find anything that looked like a source after searching online. I suspect that it doesn't pass WP:CORP. Context: I declined this for speedy deletion because it does at least give references, even if they are now hard to verify. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They lost me at "fusion company". And by "lost me", I mean this is fairly blatant spam. I'll verify in the ground next week, but if's deleted by then, no worries. Maligayang Pasko! Bearian (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If the graphic novel isn't notable yet, it should wait until it has notability before one creates a page on it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wendy Project

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

Can't seem to find any evidence that this passes WP:WEBCRIT or WP:GNG. I couldn't really find anything about this graphic novel on Google besides the official sources and a few trivial blog articles (FYI, here's my search query that excludes results about The Mindy Project and Wendy's). The only claim to notability this appears to have is that it's illustrated by Veronica Fish, but notability is not inherited. IagoQnsi (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What would meet the standards for notability in regards to a graphic novel? This is a title from a fast-rising artist that will be released next year from a major comics publisher. The information provided is not marketing-oriented and will serve as the foundation for a larger post if when the book releases there is more to add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.223.16.74 (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, if the novel doesn't release until next year, it might simply be too soon for it to have a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia only accepts articles about topics that already meet the notability guidelines, not topics that are likely to meet the guidelines in the future. This article should probably not be made until The Wendy Project has received significant coverage from reliable sources. -IagoQnsi (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability at all, either in the article or anywhere else, as far as I can find. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also couldn't find independent coverage or depth needed to establish notability. Like IagoQnsi said, maybe someday. Not right now. Maybe it can be userfied until then. South Nashua (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 02:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Heenehan

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

Delete. Completely unsourced WP:BLP of an actor "best known" as a Teletubby (and apparently not for anything else, if this is actually the best the creator could do). This is, quite obviously, a role in which he was in costume and spoke in gibberish, so there's no sense whatsoever in which it would lead to a member of the general public ever actually recognizing him as even a That Guy Who Was In That Thing, let alone Hey-It's-Tinky-Winky! -- so it's not an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of enough reliable source coverage about him to pass WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The news and book searches linked above indicate that Heenehan is probable better known for later roles, particularly in Jersey Boys, than for his portrayal of Tinky Winky. Having said that, I would point out that Teletubbies was a very big thing here in the UK. My children were too old to be in the target audience for that series, but were of the generation who learned from it how to take (possibly ironic) pleasure in entertainment meant for younger children, and I must admit to having enjoyed it myself in my middle age. One good thing about getting older is that you lose the sense of embarrassment about admitting to such things. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not denying that Teletubbies was a thing — its thingness is in no way limited to the UK, in fact, but it was very much a thing in Canada and the United States as well. But by the (costumed, dialogueless) nature of what it was, its thingness doesn't translate into its actors being known for it in anything like the way Benedict Cumberbatch is known for Sherlock or Idris Elba is known for Luther — there's no way you could look at Heenehan, whether in another acting role or just walking into the local Sainsbury's to buy kale, and think "Hey, I recognize that guy from the Teletubbies!" That's my point. Bearcat (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was being a little whimsical in my comment above, but have now had a proper look at the available sources and don't think that there has been enough coverage of the subject in reliable sources. But who was that guy that I saw in the vegetable section today in a purple onesie with a triangular arial on his head? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Everybody

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

Cross-reference: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie Imbruglia: The Collection. I just spotted this, this was created by the same editor after they created that one. I'm not seeing any evidence that an album of this name by Jennifer Love Hewitt ever existed, although there is a song by the artist of this title. So I think I have just uncovered another longstanding hoax. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be a hoax. -- Dane ^talk 01:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - either a hoax or some kind of promo. Quis separabit? 02:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fnatic. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fnatic (Dota 2)

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

This article should just be redirected/merged with the main Fnatic article, as this one is using a lot of non-valid reliable sources, such as other Wikis (Liquidpedia). Not to mention, I don't think any other large eSport organization has this individual per-game article split. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect' per Dissident. No need to axe page history in case it needs to be restored some time in the future.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fnatic. Unnecessary split. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 08:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the targeted article. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Invalid and unnecessary split. Redirect back to parent article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 05:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pankaj Munjal

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

Purely WP:PROMO article. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yes it's so overtly promotional -- and the Google News results for this chief executive really show notability for the company, rather than him. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional content. Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 01:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 05:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohit Malhotra (CEO)

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

No indication of notability. WP:PROMO Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising alone and WP:NOT applies which is non-negotiable policy. SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Advertising. WP:PROMO. -- Dane ^talk 01:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CEO don't inherit notability from the company. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss west virginia 2015 results

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

I tried twice to turn this article into a redirect, but the author reverted me both times. I think that this event does not fulfill criteria for standalone article. We do not have article for state beauty pageants for every year. The winner is listed at Miss West Virginia. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's enough that we list the winner of each year at Miss West Virginia. Listing various runners-up goes firmly into "lists of indiscriminate information" territory; these tables do not add encyclopedic content. Jeh (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; info only of interest to a few. Nate • (chatter) 09:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unencyclopedic list. We have pretty much established the winner is not default notable, there is no reason to list below that anywhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unencyclopedic list. Each winner is listed in the primary article. -- Dane ^talk 01:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per comments already mentioned.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unencyclopedic list. Carrite (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The general consensus is that the coverage about Laura Coryton is sufficient to merit a biographical about her, independent of the article(s) about the campaigns she is involved in. Deryck C. 18:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Coryton

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

Laura Coryton *as an individual* does not seem to have been the subject of a significant amount of coverage, even though her laudable campaign has. Happypoems (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the campaign may be notable, but there doesn't seem to be any otherwise relevant notability of Laura Coryton herself. 86.138.105.227 (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Media coverage would appear to be adequate. Deb (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only major journalistic article about the individual that I could find was http://www.independent.co.uk/student/student-life/tampon-tax-how-laura-coryton-started-the-stop-taxing-periods-campaign-while-still-a-student-a6891336.html. That is a major national publication but I can't find any others of similar weight - can you suggest some? Happypoems (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there wouldn't have been a campaign without her activism. I find articles about her in The Telegraph, Marie Claire Magazine, Gannett Newshopper, ITV Huff Post], Buzz Feed, how she organized the campaign in New Statesman, Vice Magazine. SusunW (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Almost none of those seem to be 'articles about her', but rather mentions of her in pages with a broader scope. The only one mentioned that I could call an 'article about her' is the news shopper one; I'd suggest that 'news shopper' is a relatively minor source.Happypoems (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As SusunW has demonstarted, easily meets WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Without their work or campaigns many people would not be notable. The shy Wright brothers, for example, would not be notable if their airplane was unsuccessful. Rosa Parks would not be remembered without her protest. The fact is, our work does definitely define us as people and subjects of Wiki articles can be notable for their accomplishments. There is enough here to pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People can be notable for their accomplishments - but I would imagine that the majority of people who know both Parks and the Wrights couldn't tell you who Laura Coryton was. Of course this might change in time, but at present it seems the campaign itself would justify a page more than the individual.Happypoems (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point of an encyclopedia is to have a way for people to look up information about people, places, and things that they don't know about. :-) Our concern is to make sure that we have content that can be verified in reliable sources not to decide whether they are worthy of an article. That is the case with Coryton. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 03:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course quite right that if Wikipedia concerns itself purely with common knowledge it's fairly useless. It's not true that there's no concern about notability - that's what WP:GNG is all about. Whether that's a good approach or not seems to be to be different discussion. Happypoems (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @SusunW and Megalibrarygirl. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails notability as an individual. The links provided by SusunW relate to the campaign and promoting the petition providing little to enhance an article about Coryton herself. Lame Name (talk)

Sorry, Lame Name, we'll have to agree to disagree. The campaign is not promoting itself. Coryton is driving it. She is credited with pushing it to France and Italy, among other places. In fact, you will be hard-pressed to find mention of the campaign that does not discuss her role in it. Coryton, and her actions made this an international phenomenon. The movement did not spread without her and her actions are acknowledged. While one may assert her name is not known to the majority of people in the world, to those who are aware that there is a tampon tax, she is known. SusunW (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of that seems to me to point strongly to the creation of a 'tampon tax' / 'feminine hygiene products tax' page which would provide suitable context in which to talk about Laura Coryton's achievements in this field in Europe, rather than in a disembodied way as in the current article. Happypoems (talk) 08:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" you will be hard-pressed to find mention of the campaign that does not discuss her role in it." That is the point. There is nothing notable outside the campaign on which an article about the individual could be established. Lame Name (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Contrary to the delete !voters assertions there are sources about Coryton as an individual in the article and the list provided by SusunW [2][3][4], and they're from very reputable news outlets (HuffPo and the BBC, at least). The (extensive) coverage of her campaign also frequently includes non-trivial biographical information about her. Yes, she is solely notable for her tampon tax campaign, but she is still notable, and we have plenty of biographies of campaigners who are only known for championing one issue. Joe Roe (talk) 12:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote. Your links (particularly 2 and 3) are further examples of why she fails to meet the notability requirements. The circular referencing of the BBC campaign is becoming more bizarre by the hour 82.22.169.139 (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what? Biographical profiles in major media outlets are examples of not being notable? You realise that we rely on reliable media organisations and publishers to tell us what is notable, right? So the BBC saying "this person needs a Wikipedia article" is about a big a hint as you're ever going to get. I really don't understand your logic here. (Also, psst: a !vote is not a vote). Joe Roe (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"is about a big a hint as you're ever going to get" not if the author of the article doesn't understand what is required to meet WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting the author knows our policies, but in many ways "notable" to Wikipedia is synonymous with "what journalists choose to write about" and here we have a journalist at a major organisation saying that they consider Coryton important. Joe Roe (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was disappointed that the writer of that article clearly didn't pay regard to what Wikipedia notability entails; later down the page they imply that if someone does something that 'goes viral', that means the person is notable. Wikipedia isn't a proxy social network. Incidentally I agree that Coryton is important. We all are, including many of us not on wikipedia who spend our lives doing equally praiseworthy things! Happypoems (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She started and won a significant campaign which has become a global campaign. There is more information about her too, such as interviews with the BBC. I think there will ultimately be too much information about her missed out if she is only written about on a dedicated page to the global Tampon Tax campaign, if or when that is created --LegereScire (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Tampon Tax. Despite what the BBC report, there are insufficient sources providing substantial, in-depth coverage of her to meet WP:BIO. She is only notable in regards to the Tampon Tax, so mention her importance there. SmartSE (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- AS the initiator of a successful campaign to change the law, I consider her notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequate sources to provide information about her and her activism. Agree that it passes the threshold for having stand alone article instead of content about her in on the page about the campaign. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 03:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is a page about the campaign yet, is there? Which is part of the issue here - does it make sense that an individual is seen as notable through initiating a campaign which isn't itself notable enough to have a page? Happypoems (talk) 09:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is well documented that Wikipedia is missing many article about notable women and their works. The media is writing about it regularly now and will continue to do so. It is fantastic that the media is collaborating with existing Wikipednians to identify the missing content, and to provide a forum for attracting new Wikipedians/Wikimedians to write about it. And that is precisely what happened here. Coryton was correctly identified as someone with plenty of reliable sources who was missing an article. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 18:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per SusunW, plenty of coverage Jooojay (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a poor advert Women in Red and volunteers in 13 countries have trained hundreds of new editors this week. We have told them that if a person is described in several reliable sources like the BBC, The Observer and the Guardian. We have told them that there is a trustworthy system for deleting spurious articles. Rhetorical pause. I get the impression that the nominator feels that we are following a campaign by the person described. Logicbomb. This discussion just adds to the story? Keep (SNOW)? Victuallers (talk) 09:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't feel that 'being described in several reliable sources' is up to the level described in WP:SIGCOV, i.e. 'significant coverage', addressing the topic 'directly and in detail' (otherwise anyone who was the subject of a national news story would get a wikipedia page). If that's not the general feeling, no problem at all... it just means that the bar for notability is a lot lower than I thought it was (and that there are a couple of my friends who don't have pages but should!). Regarding your second point, which campaign are you referring to? The tampon tax campaign, or the campaign to get more women onto Wikpedia? I can't quite make sense of what you'd mean by either...Happypoems (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well covered in the press.--Ipigott (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Tampon Tax per WP:NOPAGE, WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTINHERITED. We need to keep history in perspective here. Every single source I see discusses the tax and the petition, with brief mentions about the subject. In some of them, it simply quotes the subject. I don't see why this needs a separate article. We create separate articles only when the coverage increases to such an amount that creating a separate article is absolutely necessary. Over here the petition has received coverage and if there should be a standalone article at all, it should be about the petition. In addition, using sources like Five women who aren’t on Wikipedia but should be is seriously absurd. I mean this is like using the Dictionary of non-notable Artists to support a claim of someone being notable. Other sources such as Nesta are essentially profiles on a private organisation's website? The petition might be notable but the subject isn't independently notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination fails to consider sensible alternatives to deletion and so fails WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. (talk) 11:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, if there was an extant page for the campaign, merging and redirecting to there is what I would have suggested. There isn't, so I didn't! Happypoems (talk) 12:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Your enthusiasm for your deletion case is not matched by the reaction of multiple editor, Happypoems. Give it up. Passes WP:GNG by a country mile. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mistake my participation in the discussion for a rabid desire to delete the page. If the outcome of the discussion is that the page is fine, then of course that's the outcome and there's no problem there. I do feel that participating in a discussion that I initiated is fairly reasonable! If by 'Give it Up', you mean withdraw the nomination, I still see more reasoning from those suggesting 'merge' and 'delete'. WP:CLOSEAFD Happypoems (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to tampon tax#United Kingdom. Many of the above responses do not appear to reflect on the content of the sources or make policy-backed arguments. I merged the refs I could and ended up writing the separate tampon tax article while responding to this. Coryton is an activist in a larger campaign—the sources cover her as such and thus so should we. I read through the sources and, as usual, the tell is to find the central idea of each source: (primarily) the tampon tax in the UK, (secondarily) activism against the tax, and (tertiarily) Coryton's personal activism. So the vast majority of the news pertaining to Coryton is really about the tax, of which she is a part. We have no biographical sources from reliable, secondary sourcing—her background, her life, her other activism—it's all in the context of this one element. We handle these situations with summary style: cover the topic in an existing article and if the section grows to become undue weight and the sources warrant more expansion, split it out into its own article. I'd additionally argue that a whole lot of context is lost by discussing her campaign without any of the background on what the tampon tax activism was like in the UK outside of her petition and participation. Tampon#tax (and Peterkingiron above) make it sound as if this is all her campaign, and some sources do too, but the vast majority of the sourcing credits her mainly for the popular, online petition and "stop taxing periods, period" campaign. I looked and have yet to find any more depth of her campaigning. Until there is sufficient source content for a full treatment of the topic, Coryton is best covered in context at tampon tax#United Kingdom. czar 05:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my! Czar I started Tax on feminine hygiene products yesterday. We might need to merge the articles. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, merging and redirecting to a page dedicated to the campaign clearly seems the best course of action to me. The point about then being able to place personal achievements in proper context is a particularly strong. ~~If Czar, Lemongirl942 et al. can sort out what that page will be, i'd be happy to withdraw this nomination in favour of that action.~~ as below, suggested redirect to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampon_tax Happypoems (talk) 08:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As these other articles were written to develop this topic, they are content forks or splits. As they were inspired by the article in question, there is now no question of deleting the original – see WP:MAD. Happypoems should please withdraw his deletion nomination as it's not happening. Andrew D. (talk) 08:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson These are not content forks or splits, and no information was copied from Laura Coryton. As such, it is ineligible for WP:MAD. More importantly, the articles by Czar and me are about the topic in general - which is notable and is happening across the world. I am specifically opposed to having a standalone article about the subject because it puts undue weight on their contribution. The fact that a campaigner from UK somehow deserves a separate page smacks of WP:GEOBIAS when we consider the worldwide context of the campaign. AFD is a discussion about whether a topic deserves a standalone article - and not a binary "keep" or "delete". We often go with "merge"/"Redirect" as a better way to preserve content. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTPAPER, there's no reason we can have articles about other campaigners in other parts of the world too. We have countless articles about other feminists. The more, the merrier. Andrew D. (talk) 09:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The more pages, the merrier is not how Wikipedia is organised - hence why merge discussions happen all the time. Of course more campaigners can be mentioned and it would be good to do so in a way that maintains balance. Happypoems (talk) 10:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm not sure that per WP:SKCRIT I can withdraw the nomination - the criteria that "no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected" is not satisfied. Feel free to educate me though this is the first time I've participated in this process. Happypoems (talk) 10:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Tampon Tax per WP:NOPAGE('Does other information provide needed context?') and WP:BIO1E ("The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. "). Happypoems (talk) 11:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia content should be driven by reliable sources. There are reliable sources that are answering these questions: 1) Who are the person/people behind the global campaign to remove taxes on women's sanitary hygiene product? 2) Who are the prominent young feminists and what is their main areas of interest? The media pieces cited in this discussion and used to reference Coryton's article answer these questions and provide plenty of content to meet GNG for a stand alone article for Coryton. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 19:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG, sourcing is adequate.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets even my notoriosuly pernickerty standards for inclusion of biographies. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article in its current state demonstrates fulfilment of notability criteria. --LukeSurl^{t c} 10:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG from sources showing in the footnotes. Carrite (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 05:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Newman

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

Restored from prod, originally deleted because the subject of the article requested deletion, and it went uncontested. After restoring the article per request on WP:REFUND, I see that the text is unambiguously promotional (which can be fixed) but the citations are just lists, or dead links, and don't serve to establish notability of the subject. So I am bringing it here for a final determination to keep or delete. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable video producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG DocumentError (talk) 05:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seems like there is enough support for the article topic being independently notable to escape deletion. A merger or repurposing of the article should be discussed on the talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rahima Banu

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

The subject is a rather glaring case of WP:BLP1E. While there are quite a few mentions of this person there is not much that could reasonably be labeled in depth in its coverage beyond her unfortunate 1E claim to fame. I considered a merge into Smallpox but there is basically nothing to merge. She was the last known case, which is already mentioned in that article. End of story. If not deleted or redirected the article is almost certainly destined to remain a perma-stub. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - condition 3 of BLP1E is, "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented." Rahima Banu's case is a noted one in epidemiology and represented a very significant advance in human history. It isn't like wikipedia doesn't have the space to cover her life in more detail than would be possible merged into smallpox. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smmurphy. It does seem like her role in the event was significant enough, and being the last ever human sufferer of small pox is a claim to fame. — Amakuru (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If catching a disease, even as the last one, and with no other claim to fame, is that significant then we might as well just strike BLP1E from the guidelines right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best reason to delete this article, and it is a very good one, is not that this one event is not significant enough, but rather that Banu is a low-profile individual and her being involved in this event (ie. her being a smallpox survivor) continues to cause her to be treated poorly. The reason I still voted keep is that her name is very strongly associated with the event, and so I don't think wikipedia is in any way increasing her distress.

I usually don't think I should compare articles in AfD, but because I enjoyed reading it, I want to point out there is another high profile medical cases with a wikipedia pages which is BIO1E (Philip Blaiberg). I'm not sure if many exist that are BLP1E. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even setting aside 1E (which I believe was intended to proscribe exactly this kind of article) I have serious doubts she even passes GNG. Her name has been often mentioned but only in the context of being the last known case of smallpox. There is very little else that is out there. Certainly nothing that meets the standard of in depth coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources. There have been whole books written about Hinkley and Oswald. By comparison coverage of her is almost entirely limited to medical articles and interviews. Blaiberg also appears to have received extensive coverage from multiple secondary RS sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Oct. 16, 1975, 3-year-old Rahima Banu of Bangladesh became the last human infected with naturally occurring smallpox (variola major). When her immune system killed the last smallpox virus in her body, it also killed the last such smallpox virus in humans. In what is arguably mankind’s greatest achievement, smallpox was eradicated. Our war with this smallpox virus was brutal. It appears likely that the virus killed about one billion of us". Significant event.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 03:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The eradication of smallpox was indeed a huge event. Her role was incidental, at best. Two sentences about her in an article about smallpox does not confer any great significance on her. Nor does it come close to meeting GNG which as noted above requires in depth coverage about the subject from multiple reliable sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, although notated for WP:BLP1E, but event itself so significant that her life is well documented and the article have well sourced. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 08:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Smallpox blatant WP:BLP1E Jytdog (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:BLP1E does not and has never banned articles on persons notable for one event. It's a guideline on how to deal with such topics and when its appropriate for deletion. Even BLP1E states that it is meant for those who remain low-profile individuals. Here it is over 40 years later since the case and there is still significant coverage about this person being published and here we all are discusser her. That means her case was and remains significant. WP:BLP1E applies as a reason to keep. --Oakshade (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

really, this is exactly what the BLP policy is meant to address. This person did nothing with respect to smallpox - nothing good, nothing bad. Things happened to her, and around her. The event of which she happened to be the vessel is what is significant, not the person. This is very similar to someone who is a victim of a crime. It is not about them. Jytdog (talk) 06:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The third condition of WP:BLP1E is to avoid an article "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." The end of smallpox is a significant event. Her involvement in the event is well documented. BLP1E goes on to say that "the significance of an ... individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." Reliable sources have been writing about her in relation to the end of smallpox for four decades. I call that persistent. Sources discuss her in sufficient detail to support the short article.

Catching a disease does not normally result in enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, but in this case it did. BLP1E addresses cases of otherwise unremarkable people where there is a flurry of coverage that ordinarily would meet GNG, except that it is not persistent, it quickly evaporates. An example would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanvir Hassan Zoha in relation to 2016 Bangladesh Bank heist. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. The article was speedy deleted by RHaworth per WP:G2 (test page). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RAJA BERPERLEMBAGAAN

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

Essay on the Malaysian constitutional monarchy. WP:OR. Largoplazo (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NOTESSAY. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coach Billy Turner

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a high school football coach, referenced exclusively to local media coverage in his own local area -- no evidence is shown of the kind of nationalized media coverage it would take to make him notable for the purposes of an international encyclopedia. WP:GNG is not met just because a few pieces of local media coverage exist -- if that were enough, we would have to start keeping articles about presidents of church bake sale committees. For somebody at this level of significance, it takes more than just local coverage, demonstrating more than just local renown, for a Wikipedia article to become warranted. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he was drafted on to the Buffalo Bills which is a national football team, has produced 9 NFL players off his team, played and coached at University of Tampa during the biggest integration game in Florida's history and has a field named in his honor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amz-usf (talk • contribs) 23:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The article says he was a backup player on the Buffalo Bills for just a few days before getting cut. That's not a notability claim that gets a football player in the door because "NFL", if he never actually played on the field in a Bills game. (2) The number of players who went on from his school to join the NFL after they weren't on his team anymore is not a notability claim that gets a high school football coach into Wikipedia. There are a lot of high school coaches who could claim nine or more NFL players went through their high school coaching, without getting Wikipedia articles for that. (3) Coaching at the university level might make a difference here, if that content were reliably sourced rather than just being asserted. But as written, it's not. (4) Having a football field named after you, at the school where you were a coach, is not a notability freebie either.

As well he won awards from the state of Florida for most wins. Served on University of Tampa as the athletic director, played semi pro football for three years. would these things assist in making him more notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amz-usf (talk • contribs) 08:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He was awarded National Coach of the Year by the National Football Foundation....that's nationally recognized...would adding that help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amz-usf (talk • contribs) 07:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not impossible that he might be more notable than this article shows or sources. But if that's true, then the onus is on you to write and source it better than this, and not on anybody else to extend him the benefit of the doubt just because you say so. Bearcat (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously my first time doing this. So I am asking for help instead of being treated unkindly for not knowing any better yet. I have provided sources and will provide sources for that stuff as well. However, I apparently am doing that wrong and I am asking for help in correcting that aspect.I am certain most people needed help their first article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amz-usf (talk • contribs) 08:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable high school football coach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is it just me, or are things a bit bitey? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Close to the GNG boundary despite lack of automatic Special Notability Guideline qualification. Damn, though, this is a really terrible article per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Carrite (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:TNT without prejudice to a proper rewrite. Just about every line of this needs alteration. Carrite (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clemence Verniau

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

Delete. WP:BLP of an actress, which makes no claim to passing WP:NACTOR and contains no reliable sourcing to support it -- in fact, the page fails to even have an actual article in it, consisting solely of an an infobox and a filmography list which is sourced solely to the films' IMDb profiles, all of which reveal that she's in the cast as an unnamed minor character at best (except for one claimed film whose IMDb profile actually fails to list her name in the cast at all.) As always, Wikipedia is not a free PR platform on which an actress becomes entitled to have an article the moment she can be nominally verified as existing; an article does not become earned until reliable source coverage about her, verifying something that would actually pass WP:NACTOR, is present to support one. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bearcat really said it all... Purely PR and WP:PROMO. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any reliable sources for this person. --Cerebellum (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donnie Hogan

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth support. The majority of references are about his arrest and subsequent legal action against him or his new book. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems the only reason this person is reported on at all is because of his sister. TimothyJosephWood 20:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hogan is a strong medical marijuana advocate,,,strong advocate for disabled americans, and strong advocate for ankylosing spondylitis,,,just becuase his sister is famous is irrevelant!!!! there is more than enough evidence to support this, Please research the subject before judging! Mickiray2004 (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)mickiray2004 — Note to closing admin: Mickiray2004 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

Comment - Being a strong advocate for any cause is not a reason for inclusion into Wikipedia. Please review WP:N and WP:BIO. Unfortunately, the coverage about the individual is trivial in nature and fails to provide in-depth support. reddogsix (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~If your arguement is true then pages like Martin Luther King, Maalcom X, Rosa Parks, Mother Theresa, Nelson Mandela and Ghandi should be removed. All of those entries fought against discrimination and civil rights. Please explain what is trivial and what needs to be fixed. There are facts about this person tht cannot be denied. It is documented in four books, several magazine articles, countless online outlets and the fact that he is attempting to further his efforts of advocacy by producing the documentary Disabled in America proves that his intentions should not be considerd trivial. It should be noted that there is enough evidence to suffice the fact that Donnie Hogan is a strong advocate for the disease Ankylosing Spondylitis, He advocates for rights of disabled Americans.

He has been a notable voice in the battle for legalized marijuana, primarily in the state of Michigan where several dispensaries were raided by the DEA statewide. Hogan's case was strongly followed by media outlets and became a hot topic on all marijuana online forums. Hogan attended rallies statewide in the hopes to educate the public about the medical benefits. The fact his case was dismissed implies that he is innocent and it should be treated as such. Medical marijuana is a big issue in the current day and his part in the movement stresses the notability rights required of this page. His volunteer work should be the focus. Medical Marijuana is a larrge part of our current events. His case was a high profile case during the year 2012 and it greatly affected the marijuana movement sparking rallies, protests and should be considered a part of history as it is as such.

He is the brother of Anna Nicole Smith and was a part of the media backlash that followed her death. Hogan was interviewed several times but only recently released the fact that he suffers from the disease Ankylosing Spondylitis. He has primialy remained very private about until recently. There is evidence that his sister suffered from an autoimmune disease as well. It is well documented they are related. Donnie Hogan is his own person and should not be compared to others. This page focuses on his life, the fact he has a famous relative does not mean more than his sister was a part of Donnie Hogan's life and they shared certain moments and he was interviewed after her death this information should be added as it is a part of history,the truth and it should be noted,,,,, but it does not need to be the main focus of the page, nor was the intention of the page when created.01:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)mickiray2004 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickiray2004 (talk • contribs)

Comment - Martin Luther King, Maalcom X, Rosa Parks, Mother Theresa, Nelson Mandela are included because they are notable per Wikipedia standards not because they were advocates. There is is more than adequate support for these individuals and this is what is missing this article's subject. reddogsix (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please explain how much notability is enough. Why is there a comparison? Some will move a mountain to save a million while others will move a pebble to save just one. I believe the fact that the name has been published in several media outlets, the fact the name is associated with events that have been a part of history is what is required.

Is he only being compared to his famous sister? There are other relatives of her listed here that have done less, why are they not being questionedMickiray2004 (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)mickiray2004[reply]

Comment - You do not seem to understand the concept of notability. Please read WP:N, specifically WP:GNG. There is no comparison to other articles, other articles have no bearing on this one. reddogsix (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There may be material about him on the web, but a lot of it are blog postings and other sites not deemed to be reliable, secondary sources. What's needed is significant coverage in national mainstream press, magazines, books - see the guidelines for a more thorough explanation.

There's a set of tools at the top of the page to check for reliable sources. Of those, NYT has nothing; of the 10 found from this query, only about half of those could be used as sources; there are three at HighBeam - but none are applicable, a newspaper query bring 1 N/A article, and a regular search on google news turns up 2 articles that are not applicable. There are records that come up from this the first query, but they are very few that are applicable or from a reliable source.

When I look at his areas of interest in "Donnie Hogan" "Ankylosing Spondylitis" OR marijuana, there may be some content from reliable secondary sources for this Donnie Hogan, but it would take some weeding thorugh to identify enough sources, and I didn't find a national journalistic source. There does not appear to be enough to establish notability. There also is no mention of how he may have contributed to his causes in a significant way. Lastly, the article as it is right now, it is hard to determine if there is notability because the content is not generally not cited - and one of the three sources is a blog.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Thank you. Okay, so what is needed is the links to the articles from Us weekly, national enquirer, OK magazine, Publisher Weekly, clips from his appearances on Inside Edition, German television, Extra, Montel Williams?

Links to more media publications produced nationally say, Transcripts from MSNBC live and Fox news?

Newspapers clippings from the rallies and protests? More photos with credible sources. Uploaded photos provided by him with federally issued copyrights with his notarized permission to use? There is also several of proofs of medical records and copies of court proceedings not only regarding the medical marijuana issue but the issues stemmed from his sister's death.

There are newspaper clippings of the advocacy of Ankylosing Spondylitis and the Disabled in America project but the filming of the show is still on going.

Could this just be a question of creating a page in the wrong category and it needs to be recreated in a different category of this site.50.200.95.98 (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)mickiray2004[reply]

Comment - As has been pointed in prior comments, the significance of coverage and the trivial nature of the coverage does not support inclusion into a Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The continued same reply does not answer of new the questions. Your opinion has also been noted. But your opinion is also trival in my opinion.

SISTER DONNA HOGAN ALSO LISTED, Keep page There is another sibling of Anna Nicole Smith has been listed and she is only known for writing a book about Anna Nicole Smith. She has not done anything other than publish one book and has way far less information. Why is her page allowed and Donnie Hogan's is questioned. Donnie Hogan has done things in his own right and if it is trivial, yet no one has explained the reasons why they feel so, so be it, it is the truth.

Again I ask, does this need to be subject matter need to be re-categorized or changed to be allowed? 19:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)mickiray2004 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickiray2004 (talk • contribs)

Comment - Do you really think referring to my comments as trivial will entice me to help you? The comment verges on WP:UNCIVIL. No one has talked about the actions of the subject as being trivial, the comment is, "the support for the article is trivial."

The existence of another article has no bearing on this article - other stuff exists. Your question relating to a different cat - the issue is not the cat, it is the substance and support of the article. Once again, the issue is support for the article does not meet the criteria to support WP:NOTABILITY. reddogsix (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentDo you really think me questioning your motives is not relevant? I am not asking you specifically for help. Your motives are clear. I am asking others who have commented on this page. Please and thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickiray2004 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did not see you questioning my motives. Please read WP:AGF before continuing your comments.reddogsix (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure that you're reading the guidelines. Looking at WP:GNG, the key points are

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
"Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

So, if you just take the three top items together - what is needed is: significant coverage from mainstream newspapers, magazines, and/or books.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will continue to work on these articles, I know where they exist and where to look. He has been interviewed by four books, I will add those links, I will locat the transcripts from Msnbc and iterviews from Rita Crosby. I will get the transcript to the Montel Williams Show and the links to he appearanaces on Inside Edition and Extra. I will get the links to the media coverage by NBC and Cbs during the marijuana rallies in Michigan. I can find the interviews provided online about Ankylosing SPondylitis. I am willing to make the changes to make the page acceptable.

Mickiray2004 (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)mickiray2004[reply]

additional info,,,,,

^{[clarification needed]}

these articles can be added easily and I will find them. Most articles speak for medical marijuana and it is a side note of his sister's relation. The same is also said for AS articles. I am digging into archives for content. Mickiray2004 (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)nickiray2004[reply]

A couple of things - just adding more links to the bottom doesn't help much. What needs to be done is show where the content from the article came from, by putting the citations inline with the text. And, if you think that the article should be saved, I personally think it's a good exercise to try - just as long as you understand that it still may be deleted if the article fails to meet the guidelines. For instance - I was just trying to give you a better sense of the issues, I why I voted to Delete. There were also other guidelines mentioned in the comments. If it helps to walk through each of the guidelines in more depth, I am happy to take this conversation to the talk page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an FYI, I also nominated Donna Hogan, an article about his sister (and another half-sibling to Anna Nicole Smith), for deletion.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAs a part of real life, this story will go on regardless of the posting or deletion of this page. I will continue to document the work and when enough is gathered I will hire a trained professional to create the page, so then when it comes time for the inevitable judging we will be prepared. The fact he is advocating in life should be documented. Unfortunately hours of his advocacy work is done privately on Ankylosing Spondylitis outreach lines. These things are done anonymously and he has helped patients through some of the toughest moments of their life, some on the brink of suicide. These things cannot be mentioned publicly.

He tries to avoid being judged strictly on relations. He has rare publicity because the questions always pertain to his sister but he continues to advocate daily for disabled people and is currently filming a documentary about those who discriminate against the disabled. The media will be gathered and continued to be added to this page or the next one that will be created when he meets the guidelines. He still continues filming and I am sure the press will grow. He is currently in negotiations for the airing of the show on Discovery or National Geographic. Life does go on.

I will find someone better equipped to help in the creation of this page. I will continue to gather information. Mickiray2004 (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)mickiray2004[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. There are insufficient in-depth secondary sources. Edwardx (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per everything said above. His WP:OSE sister's article has been PRODed and will more than likely be deleted, anyway. — Iadmc ♫^talk 06:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Add: I've done a bit of work on the article to make it more encyclopedic (mainly as practice for myself). Whether it is worth keeping or not is another matter. I stand by my vote: most of the coverage relates to his and his wife's arrest for selling pot. That bit certainly got expanded... not much else, though, beyond a little on his childhood — Iadmc ♫^talk 12:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment we could just merge it into Legality of cannabis, since that is really all he may be notable for, if at all? — Iadmc ♫^talk 16:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it was an article about legalizing pot in his state or city, that might be appropriate. But, it's an article about legalization of pot generally, around the world. In this case, though, he's not a national presence regarding legalization of pot. I think this would be giving undue weight to any statements that he supports legalization of pot over others that truly are a major presence.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point — Iadmc ♫^talk 18:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete seems to be a minor celebrity due to his half-sister; refs are all hyper local. Fails GNG Jytdog (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Du Bois

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

Quick Google search reveals nothing notable in terms of coverage or recognition. Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO South Nashua (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion nominations should have a better rationale than a "quick Google search". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The citation counts in his Google scholar profile, linked from the article, demonstrate a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1 — his h-index is not that impressive, but 13 of his publications have over 100 citations each, and one has over 1000. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1. Very high citation rate for linguistics. Joe Roe (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1. Nominator needs to apply WP:Before before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - full professor at a Research I university. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passess WP:PROF. -- Dane ^talk 07:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this obviously meets WP:PROF.Jacona (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 05:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce C. Bordner

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

Delete. WP:BLP, referenced nowhere but the subject's own self-published website and LinkedIn résumé, about a sessional lecturer at a university. As always, Wikipedia is not a free résumé-hosting site on which academics get a free inclusion pass just for existing -- but nothing here demonstrates or reliably sources a credible pass of WP:NPROF. Bearcat (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There might be something notable about him, but it's not on there now and if it existed, I assume it would have been put up there already. Agree with Bearcat. South Nashua (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails the prof test. He appears to be an adjunct. If I'm incorrect, or this information is outdated, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not qualify per WP:PROF. -- Dane ^talk 07:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no where near passing guidelines for academics, and article is sourced only to his own websites.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn due to sourcing and content improvements. Bearcat (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black Noise: Rap Music and Black Culture in Contemporary America

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

Delete. Book which makes a valid potential claim of notability, but completely fails to source that properly. The entire article consists of the incomplete sentence fragment "Winner of the 1995 American Book Award from the Before Columbus Foundation", and the only "reference" provided is the book's own publication details. As always, a book does not automatically qualify for a Wikipedia article just because it's technically possible to "cite" the book as circular metaverification of itself; it gets a Wikipedia article when reliable source coverage about the book in media independent of itself can be cited to get it over WP:NBOOK. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can write a complete sentence about the book and reference it somewhere other than itself, but this as written is not a keepable article. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added the necessary sources and expanded it as best I could. I figure that the student (C N R1993) can do the rest of the expansion. Bearcat, what do you say? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I say, "Once again, Tokyogirl79 saves the day." Seriously, girl, you rock. Bearcat (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 02:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bay Weekly

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

Delete. Completely unsourced article about a weekly newspaper. As always, newspapers are not entitled to an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NMEDIA just because they exist; a newspaper must be the subject of reliable source coverage, in sources other than its own self-published content about itself, for a Wikipedia article to become earned. Article was already tagged for speedy, which was declined -- but while there is enough of a claim of notability here to preclude speedy, it isn't strong enough or sourced enough to actually make the article keepable. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough coverage to prove notability. -- Dane ^talk 07:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cerebellum (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Auburn-Opelika Football Rivalry

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

Delete. Completely unsourced article about the non-notable sports rivalry between two football teams at the high school level. While this kind of thing could potentially be eligible, if properly sourceable, for listing in List of high school football rivalries more than 100 years old or List of high school football rivalries less than 100 years old (a bit of an arbitrary toss-up in this case, since the rivalry is claimed as being just a few weeks away from sitting exactly on the 100-year dividing line), it's not entitled to a standalone article just because it exists, in the absence of valid sourcing for it. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to prove the notability of this rivalry. -- Dane ^talk 07:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Zopo Mobile#Product Series. Cerebellum (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zopo Color C2

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

Non notable product. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it does have reviews such as this one , also if only the biggest brands like Apple and Samsung are extensively covered that causes a big brand bias. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a review, it's a product announcement. Wikipedia is not here to correct the media's big brand bias. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage in independent reliable sources has been added. Pls kindly check again. Thanks for the work. Claire.ma729 01:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC) — Claire.ma729 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete -- I'm not up to date on the relevant guidelines but my editorial feeling is that product reviews from companies that just review every smartphone that is produced don't constitute sufficient evidence of notability. CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep —Hi Sasha, you can check my edit again because I've added some neutral news and other links rather than the reviews about the link site.Thanks for your advice and notice and I won't make the mistake on my next edit. Claire.ma729 —Preceding undated comment added 08:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still seems to fail WP:PRODUCT -- in particular it seems like stubs about individual phones like this should be added to Zopo Mobile until such time as that page is getting unwieldy. CapitalSasha ~ talk 16:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zopo_Mobile#Product_Series. Doesn't appear to be notable. Adam9007 (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zopo_Mobile#Product_Series non notable product. - Mar11 (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Not independently notable. Gnome de plume (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Chaiwala#The Chaiwala from Islamabad, Pakistan. Rounding to redirect. Furthermore, the current text is a WP:COPYVIO of this (not to mention WP:G11). The only place it's recoverable to seems to be the same place that got it CSD'ed the first time around. slakr^\ talk / 03:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arshad Khan (model)

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

WP:BLP1E: Single event, low-profile individual, event has no lasting significance. GSS (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This person is now being reported very often by the local media which makes him notable. --Saqib (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Saqib (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

@Saqib: Even if the subject is being reported by local media single event is still exists and per BLP1E "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article." – GSS (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a case of only one event. The media coverage of this individual has grown larger so an article is justified. Many major newspapers gave a significant attention to this model. As per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers, if someone "has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." and also "has a large fan base." the subject ma y justify an article and in my opinion, this individual has. After making his runway debut, Arshad Khan has made his first appearance in a music video as well. --Saqib (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: Well the subject has appeard only in one music video so far and its WP:TOOSOON for a stand alone article and the notability of the musician/artist of the music video is also in question. I don't see anything to support large fan base and we can not rely on social media fan following. GSS (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In worst case, I suggest to redirect this to Chaiwala#The_Chaiwala_from_Islamabad.2C_Pakistan. --Saqib (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chaiwala#The Chaiwala from Islamabad, Pakistan. sami ^talk 20:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - purely promotional as it stands. Deb (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:GSS-1987: This guy keep making news. Recently, named amongst the sexiest asian mans of 2016 by Eastern Eye. --Saqib (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: Do you think it's enough for a stand alone article and passes WP:ENTERTAINER. I still belive it's WP:TOOSOON for an article on Wikipedia. GSS (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this entry should be labeled as TOOSOON, but for sure, he'll managed to get get one soon. Dawn (newspaper) reported the model has started working on upcoming film Kabeer. --Saqib (talk) 07:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: Maybe in future when he play a significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions as per WP:NACTOR. GSS (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete I don't think it currently meets WP:ENTERTAINER and I don't see any reliable sources that currently could get the article up to the required notability. I agree with GSS that it may also be too soon. Current coverage is because of a single instance of a photo going viral (though it is a verrrryy nice photo ) Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 New Warriors. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 03:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forever Yesterday

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

Non-notable comic book storyline that's WP:ALLPLOT. Prior AFD was for different subject with same name. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A relatively minor storyline, that had no real-world notability. Searching for sources, I'm only coming up with a few hits that merely mention it as a "New Warriors" story, without going into any detail on it. Perhaps a redirect to New Warriors might be possible, but there is simply not enough on the subject to support its own article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to New Warriors. The best source I could find was still just a trivial mention. I have a slight preference for redirecting over deleting, but it's no great loss either way. --Cerebellum (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brielle Zolciak Biermann

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

The article is about a daughter of a reality television star. Clearly not notable, only known for randomly appearing on two reality series, none of her own. All the sources about the person come from tabloids. Mymis (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While her mother may be notable, she clearly is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - her parents' notability is not inherited. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hoe Avenue peace meeting. Per E.M. Gregory and Jmabel. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell Benjamin

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

Should be merged with Ghetto Brothers unless the article can be greatly expounded upon. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 16:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ghetto Brothers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 18:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Ghetto Brothers, a woefully poor article on a notable topic (I searched, thinking it should be tagged for non-notability, and tagged it for sourcing instead). I also searched "Cornell Benjamin" + "ghetto brothers" [5] He's notable only within the context of that group, and should be redirected there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly more appropriate to redirect to Hoe Avenue peace meeting, which was a result of his death. If it hadn't been for that, no one would have heard of him. - Jmabel | Talk 21:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Hoe Avenue peace meeting as per User:Jmabel, who has knowledge of this topic area.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus for a redirect, but certainly for article removal. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Global Learning Environment

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

There are no sources to prove that this is a renowned concept i asked the creator to supply some references but after 3 weeks he seems inactive. I searched the web but found very little. The page has been edited 12 times by different editors but no references added. The page has now become more about distance learning. Fails WP:GNG as a concept I believe. Domdeparis (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Distance education as this fails WP:GNG. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 08:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 18:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, searching finds various other uses of the term but nothing significant. Redirect to Distance education is not a appropriate because that article is mostly about all online education, which is mostly not global in nature. This article is specifically about learning without "cultural boundaries". MB 01:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geetanjali Babbar

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

Procedural nomination for Фред-Продавец звёзд who loaded added the rationale to an AfD that I had started here [6]. The reasoning was: Article without any normal sources, with very bad style, with non-working links to YouTube. More than: this page was created in the BBC special olympic raid "against sexism, rasism etc". Not a normal article. ~~I am neutral on the outcome of this debate~~ TonyBallioni (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've done what I can. It seems the subject meets notability criteria. For the record, there were "normal" sources (Times of India, Digital Empowerment Foundation). "Very bad style" and general formatting is poor rationale for deletion. I think we can work on this more and bring it up to standards. The BBC editathon is about women, not sexism and racism. I've reviewed several of the other articles and while they needed cleanup, they otherwise appeared to satisfy inclusion criteria. I feel this one is no different — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep - passes WP:GNG --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now adequately sourced.--Ipigott (talk) 09:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has enough sources to pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I appreciate TonyBallioni's neutrality and helping another Wikipedian bring an article to the attention of the editing community. However, I wonder if our time wouldn't be better served by instructing users like Фред-Продавец звёзд about how to tag an article for problems and how to do WP:BEFORE. Bringing an article that has problems to AfD but has enough sources out there to pass GNG is a waste of time, IMO. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: as a general principle, I think unexperienced users should be helped to bring articles to AfD when they clearly are trying to do that. In this case, I do agree with you that further review from the community probably would not be merited after the cleanup done and think that if an admin is passing by, a snow keep is probably in order here, especially considering the original nominator has not provided additional reasoning. I have also struck my neutral vote from the nomination. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni:, I understand where you're coming from. I'm just really big on teaching WP:BEFORE because it often clears things up before AfD. Thanks! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 04:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Sorry, I didn't !vote in my comment above. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl:, you actually did !vote. Strike? TonyBallioni (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: I sure did. Boy I'm tired! :P Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- Substantial improvements have occurred after the nomination. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the lack of input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extinction in Stereo

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

I couldn't find independent reliable published sources to demonstrate notability for this album. Unless someone else has more success, the title should likely be redirected to the band article, No Trigger. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 18:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, without prejudice against possible merger. There appears to be some movement towards a merger consensus, and that conversation can certainly continue. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tonbokiri

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

A legendary weapon from Japanese history. This probably exists, but the content fails WP:V. Unsourced since 2011. A Google search yields only video game and other pop culture-related material. If somebody reads Japanese and could help out, that would be great, but after 5 unsourced years this probably needs to go otherwise. Sandstein 17:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. _dk (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see how it can really be considered independently of the main stub on the three spears, Three Great Spears of Japan. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. That does have a source, [7], which at p. 31 does nothing more than mention these three spears. There might be something here, at least for one article about all three spears, but we'd need something by the way of sources. Sandstein 20:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I can't read it, the Japanese version of this article is longer and has a source, which suggests to me that it's verifiable in principle. Otherwise, it seems a decent stub and we can afford to wait for someone with the language skills to add citations. Joe Roe (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That source is a dead link of a Asahi Shimbun newspaper article? That is not inspiring confidence. Frankly I would like there to be an article, but after five years of no WP:V one has to got to draw the line somewhere. Sandstein 22:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder to everyone that the very internet technology that is allowing us to have this conversation makes any foreign language article readable enough. Either by using the Chrome browser with the built-in translation function -- or simply pasting the webpage URL into Google Translate's webpage. The future has arrived. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Having seen its output from languages I can read, I'm reluctant to rely on Google Translate for anything other than single words and short phrases. Running ja:蜻蛉切 through it gave such insights as the weapon being "known for having patronized world three people spear was called spear" and that references can be found in "Toshiyuki Sato supervision, "this can be seen better," arms and armor "of legend: the holy sword Excalibur, from Demon Blade village positive until the shield Aegis"". Joe Roe (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, it does seem to have a real problem converting logogram languages but I do find it useful for determining if a ref is "substantial coverage," anyway. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Though I see the Japanese writing system is a combination of logogram and syllabic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a stub. The fact that there is a longer Japanese article suggests to me that there is more to be said and that it is not (for example a hoax or original research). We need to be patient until someone can expand it. The criterion is verifiability, not that it is verified. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiabilty means, as noted below, "verifiable for the reader", i.e., the existence of references in the article, not just the hypothetical existence of sources. Sandstein 10:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:V says, "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up." This weapon probably exists, and if so is certainly notable. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's precisely the problem: readers must be able to check the information in the article, but they cannot do so for lack of references. What you wrote is an argument for deletion. Sandstein 10:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you believe this spear is made up? The first link on the page is to Three Great Spears of Japan, where the spear is mentioned in a book with the transliteration of "tonbogiri" (perhaps it should be moved to that name?). Under that name there are more results (in google books, some are self-published or novelizations). I added the citation from that article to this one, I really don't think this is a hoax. If the article is deleted, perhaps it should be replaced with a redirect to the three great spears article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably not a hoax. But all of the content is unverifiable to the reader: Because there are no references, the reader cannot (without performing their own research) verify that the spear exists, or that any of the article's contents (such as the legend about the origin of the name) are not just made up by whoever wrote the article. That's why we have WP:V, which requires that we delete articles or content for which, even after being challenged, no references are provided. Sandstein 15:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused to read, "That's why we have WP:V, which requires that we delete articles or content for which, even after being challenged, no references are provided." I don't think that is what WP:V is about at all. WP:V does note that if no third-party sources can be found, then wikipedia should not have an article about it, referencing WP:N. But we know there are third-party sources, I added one, pointed out that many more can be found when searching using an alternate spelling, and there are a number in Japanese. In any case, I've added a second reference. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The first third of the Asahi Shimbun article is available at the Internet Archive. To give a rough translation:

One of the Three Great Spears of Japan, the Tonbokiri used by one of Tokugawa Ieyasu's generals Honda Tadakatsu, will be put on display for the first time in 11 years. Belonging to the collection of Numazu, Shizuoka businessman Toshio Yabe (1905-1996), it will be put on display at the Sano Art Museum in Mishima, Shizuoka from the 9th [January 2015].

The "Dragonfly Cut in Half" Legend

According to the Sano Art Museum, the Tonbokiri was crafted by Masazane Fujiwara, an apprentice of Muramasa. Its beautiful blade pattern is a feature and the blade is 43.7cm long. The story of a dragonfly flying into it and being cut in half while the spear was standing at a battle site has survived.

The Tonbokiri at the "Mikawa Warriors Palace" museum in Okazaki, Aichi is a replica, and the authentic item was in Yabe's possession.

The article uses "according to the museum", which in itself is not very convincing language. The Japanese wiki article has one more source (which devotes about 10 sentences to the topic) and some further details on the spear, plus of another spear that may have been in the Honda household during the Edo period. The source at Three Great Spears of Japan only mentions the Tonbokiri (Tonbogiri) and other two spears by name, with no further details about the items given. The two Japanese sources verify the spear existed. Whether they satisfy the notability requirements I'm not so sure. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Athomeinkobe: Thanks for the research! Do you think we have enough sources for the article Three Great Spears of Japan as a whole, at least? We could merge this article into it. Sandstein 10:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Currently articles for the other two spears have not been created on the English wiki, but each spear has its own article on the Japanese wiki. I haven't looked at the other two Japanese articles in great detail, but the best-sourced one appears to be Otegine. But more than half of that article is about replicas held by various museums. Information on the original weapons appears to be light. I doubt we could ever write more than five paragraphs on each weapon, so merging Tonbokiri into the three spears article and having all of the information in one place sounds like a good idea. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with three great spears article. There are reliable sources on this topic, although most are in Japanese, apparently. I think it's notable, but maybe not as a standalone article.--Yellow Diamond (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cerebellum (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Ferndale earthquake

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

This is not a notable event by any stretch of the imagination. Why was this created? Dawnseeker2000 16:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article and would like to make a case that for large seismic events by magnitude like this one, with extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources, the corresponding article (and Wikidata item) should be created in order to serve the needs of people looking for this information. The Mercalli intensity of the earthquake was moderate but by magnitude, this is one of the largest to have hit California in the past 5 years. It was covered in The Guardian, CNN, The Independent, Fox News, ABC News, just to name a few. The earthquake is in the list of the most significant seismic events worldwide in the past month according to USGS. The earthquake is only one in 7 events with a magnitude equal to, or greater than 6.5 to hit North America in the past 10 years. I'll continue to expand the stub with more information. --DarTar (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is "extensive" coverage because news organizations' primary goal is to make money. There is no reason to document low intensity earthquakes with zero effects, either in stand alone articles or lists, especially in a very seismically active area like the north coast of California. Look at the contradictory headlines versus what is in the text of these articles:

"Powerful magnitude 6.5 earthquake hits" ("There were no immediate reports of injuries or damage") – Los Angeles Times
California earthquake latest: 6.5 magnitude tremor recorded off West Coast 'That was a big one,' San Francisco resident says (No damages, injuries or tsunami threat reported from earthquake that struck Thursday) – The Guardian

Dawnseeker2000 17:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS Seasider91 (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Earthquakes/notability_guidelines, which is a reasonable set of criteria that this earthquake fails. Recent news report should not be granted a ton of credit, per WP:NOTNEWS. (Ping Lugnuts, who did this edit, maybe they can point to a discussion behind it?) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there was one, but it was a good move to place that template there. Some tsunami earthquakes are low intensity events, and are a good example of an exception. Dawnseeker2000 17:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 05:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James V. Baker

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

Does not appear to have any third-party references, only a long list of his own works, and so does not establish biographical notability.

Non-neutral tone isn't reason for deletion, but doesn't help. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a poorly and fairly blatant cut and paste of his resume. I can't see past the wall of verbiage whether he's notable. We certainly have eliminated many other local officials, business people, and activists. Bearian (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither his roles in tennis or business rise to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nominator. Meatsgains (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Useless Kisses

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Just because the singer is notable doesn't mean the album is too. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to the deletion of this article as it will open the deletion case of the singer's other albums in the future because of the non-notability by google search. I don't know how an album IS NOT notable if it's already in amazon, itunes and cdbaby. Bbadree (talk) 08:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being available on iTunes and Amazon.com are not markers of notability and it is not a good argument of notability. I would suggest looking for third-party, reliable sources discussing the album's release and composition or any reviews. There are plenty of songs on iTunes for instance that are not notable and should not have an article on here, so again it is not a good argument. Aoba47 (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While there is a distinct dearth of English-language sources on this album, it does appear to be covered in Turkish-language sources. Lacking any knowledge of Turkish myself, I don't know exactly what the WP:RS status of these sources are, but they appear independent. English-language cites would, of course, be preferable to what is now available. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:G12: This is a copyvio mess (e.g. [8] and [9]) slakr^\ talk / 03:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caucasian Federation

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

Is an essay, comprising synthesis and OR and seemingly written with a Georgian irredentist pov. We already have articles that fully cover the reality: Transcaucasian Federation and Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic. Despite its proclaimed subject "an early 20th century project about the creation of a Pan-Caucasian federation" - the bulk of the article's content, written with bias, concerns more recent politics in Georgia. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs much work to improve the prose and references, but the idea of Caucasian federation has a long history. Accusations of "Georgian irredentism" are false, apparently stemming from the nominator's lack of understanding of its definition and the history of attempts at Caucasian unity. As ephemeric and/or unrealistic as it is, the idea of Caucasian unity has surfaced several times in modern history and I fail to see much OR/POV in this article. If anything, being POV or poorly written is not enough reason to scrap the entry.--Kober^Talk 18:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you denying that the bulk of the article's content is late-20th century related material? Claiming that the notorious "Georgia for the Georgians" Zviad Gamsakhurdia was actually a figurehead for a "Caucasian Federation" concept is an example of the article's biased pov. So too is the claim that Armenia opposed the concept - in reality it was the opposite: it was Georgia, for its own national interest, that withdrew from the Transcaucasian Federation, causing it to collapse. The idea of a federation should be covered in the already existing articles. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is an old idea, dating back at least to the WWI period. It actually did produce the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic. And it has come back around in recent years. Article needs work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite even a single source saying it has come back around in recent years. Talk nowadays about reducing post-Soviet Union border or trade or passport restrictions is not a "Caucasian Federation". It is an exclusively 19th / early 20th century concept, dating to when the Southern Caucasus was a multi-ethnic region with multi-ethnic towns and cities and the only way to realize any political independence from Russia or Turkey while maintaining internal stability would be as a federation. That ended after WW1. The Soviet Transcaucasus republic was an outside creation imposed as a way for the Soviets to eliminate internal opposition - once they were firmly in control it was abolished and the individual republics recreated. The appropriate article to cover the subject already exists, it is theTranscaucasian Federation. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

as for coming back around, it does, you know, usually as somebody's wild proposal for a buffer zone , or local autonomy in between Russia, Turkey and Iran. Here is Hurriyet reporting ("SCENARIO #4 Turkey creates a Caucasian Federation")[10].

Back to real-world uses, There have been 2 so far. Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic briefly, in 1918. and the Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic 1922-1936.

Primary use, of course, is by historians discussing these 2 Soviet "republics." E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A quick sample of the searches above that have a decent chance of finding reliable sources (the book and scholar searches) unearths almost as many different definitions of this title as there are sources. There doesn't seem to be any agreed definition of what a Caucasian federation actually is, was or should be, so it seems that we would be better served by having separate articles on the different concepts that might go by this name rather than an article with this title. Maybe a disambiguation page would be in order? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. An editor or 2 willing and able to do the heavy lifting of writing a good article is certainly needed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see many sources on this. Sure, there was some political entities that incorporated all of Transcaucasia but whether there was a formal and distinct "Caucasian Federation" movement remains unclear. This article itself does not clarify that for us. Article appears to be mostly off-topic material. Language is quite unencyclopedic as well, especially the last paragraph which reads like a blog. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 07:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but perhaps renamed. This is about a movement of concept seeking unity within the region. I do not like the resent name, which implies that a federation exists or existed, whereas it seems never to have been more than a political ambition. This ambition deserves an article, but perhaps Federative ambitions in the Caucasus. I am open to suggestions on the precise name. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse User:Peterkingiron's redirect proposal.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Largely unsourced original essay. Carrite (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the topic of "Caucasian Federation" or Trans-Caucasian Federation may be notable, but the execution of the article does not meet WP:V or WP:NPOV, and thus the article should be deleted. No prejudice to recreation should someone decide to do so with reliable sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not only is this article largely unsourced as well lacking reliable sources, the concept of the "Caucasian Federation" is ephemeral. While this was advocated by Georgian and Chechen nationalists in the 1990s and 2000s due to their conflicts with Russia, this was not advocated by Azeris and Armenians at all. Sondrion (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Graham

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

Non-notable lawyer, although it does (did?) represent notable clients. Looks like a promotional piece too, and I note the law firm mentioned has a suspended website and deleted Twitter account which indicates that perhaps if no longer exists. Shritwod (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have added some references about current misconduct allegations. Although they make the subject more notable (the original was simply a puff piece IMO), I am also aware that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Thoughts welcomed. Shritwod (talk) 07:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.~~ Article looks at first glance like simple PR –Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Some reliable sources do exist regarding the subject's alleged disappearance and theft of funds: the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Las Vegas Sun, and a local news station. Until the case gets wider attention, however, it doesn't seem notable enough for an encyclopedia entry – WP:NOTNEWS. The subject is also not a "renowned national or international figure" nor is the event a "well-documented historic event" per WP:CRIME. The presumption of innocence and privacy per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons militate against creating an encyclopedia article about the event or the person as yet. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curious, notability does seem to have increased with the new press coverage. I AfDed the article after an issue was raised on the BLP noticeboard on 8th December before the press coverage came out but after the state bar had suspended his license. Without wanting to out an IP editor, it is of note that the BLP query appeared to come from another law firm which might explain why they were ahead of the news. So, this does seem like a potentially developing article right at the moment. Shritwod (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Notability, "If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual". Robert C. Graham, the subject of this article, seems likely to remain "a low-profile individual". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks self-promoting PR with personal hype; links don't work; company closed; lacking verified information throughout "Delete" no lesser use viable —inchmahom 10:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, poorly sourced and appears promotional. Sagecandor (talk) 11:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete The public must be made aware that attorneys' trust accounts that hold clients' money are venerable. What Robert Graham and his wife Linda M. Graham did was not only immoral, unethical, but clearly a crime. Attorneys are not above the law. Chaos4tu (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

City Centre Plaza

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

fails WP:GNG. a very small shopping centre of 1 floor and 14,000 sqm. Coverage is minimal. In fact gnews picks up a similarly named centre in Chicago. LibStar (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Phil roc^{My contribs} 15:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable shopping centre. Fals WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedied per WP:CSD#A2 (tr:Murat Gigin) by Anthony Bradbury. Favonian (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murat Gigin

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

Turkish businessman. Judging by the Google translation [11] (the article is in Turkish), he isn't notable. Yintan 13:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pretty clearly no support for deletion. Repurposing the article to be about the photograph or merging it received enough discussion to merit serious consideration; however, it can be discussed on the talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ieshia Evans

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sppedying this because there is a reasonable claim of notability, which I would counter with WP:ONEEVENT TheLongTone (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (Obviously with a lot of work) I think it has a chance of becoming another Tank Man or Phan Thi Kim Phuc - X201 (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To compare this to "Tank Man" from the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre is just ridiculous. It was an iconic image that is burned into the minds of everyone who has seen it. Sorry but I don't believe Ieshia Evans is notable enough for a Wiki article on this incident alone. Vote to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.65.132 (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that according to CBS News, the photo of Evans "has also been likened to photos captured in past civil rights protests as well as one of the takeover in Tienanmen Square in China that captured a man staring down the tank"; the Women in the World Foundation says, "Some have even compared the image to the famous shot of a young student staring down military tanks at Tiananmen Square in 1989"; and The Guardian says that "The photograph drew comparisons to other historic images such as those showing the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989.". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also see The Washington Post: "The young woman’s stoic pose drew comparisons to Rosa Parks’s refusing to give up a seat on a segregated bus or 'tank man' facing down war machines in Tiananmen Square." —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, but the article should be moved to a title making it about the photo. The news coverage is considerable, international, and enduring: the photo was taken in July and I just found coverage from November. I believe it squeaks by under the general notability guideline as a viral phenomenon, but it is not a biography. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The topic and focus of the article should be changed from a BLP to the photograph. The photograph is notable, the person is not. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inclusion in Shooting of Alton Sterling#Aftermath and reactions would be justified but fails notability as an individual Lame Name (talk) 06:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is one of BBC 100 Women of 2016 100 Women (BBC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proudass10 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recentism versus BBC 100 Women is a difficult one. Deb (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable at least through BBC 100 Women, if not before. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Black Lives Matter. I have run several searches on her and find no material prior to this single event. While I agree that the image is iconic, this appears to be a one-time event and is acknowledged as her first participation in activism. Recognition by the BBC does not make her automatically notable under WP standards. SusunW (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adequate press coverage.--Ipigott (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mainly for reason of the media coverage, in second place for her nominations (AfroAmerica Network Black Woman of 2016, BBC 100 Women of 2016). --Chris Howard (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject of an iconic image, with sufficient press to pass WP:GNG --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - may have been brought into the public eye by a single photograph, but sufficient coverage following this to meet notability. fish&karate 12:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into Shooting_of_Alton_Sterling. Subject of a photograph with no any additional event. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to be about the image rather than the person. Significant coverage in reliable sources exists that treats the photo as the subject – for example in The Guardian, The Atlantic, WNYC, CBS, Reuters, and Le Figaro – whereas coverage about the person is less in-depth. Even appearing in the BBC's 100 Women mainly supports notability for this one event – The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. The photo itself doesn't appear to be titled, so I suggest renaming the article simply Image of Ieshia Evans. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There was also coverage of the photo in The New York Times Magazine and The Washington Post. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jim Edmonds. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan King Edmonds

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

The article is about a reality television star. Clearly not notable, only known for appearing on one show. All the sources about the person are either tabloids or articles about the series. Mymis (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable reality TV star.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jim Edmonds, the subject's more well-known husband; enforce with a locked RD if an article breakout is attempted with the same lax sourcing. Nate • (chatter) 09:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yongtoogi

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

I simply could not find enough significant reliable coverage about this martial arts program; searching for sources only resulted in incidental mentions or promotional videos. It probably doesn't help that the organization which introduced it doesn't have a Wikipedia article. A redirect to Hwa Rang Do is possible, however, given that the term is mentioned in the latter article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is nothing more than a training term specific to a borderline notable martial art. There is no need for its own article and I can't even see the point for a redirect. There is nothing that makes this notable as a sparring style.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no significant independent coverage of this new sport. Papaursa (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tomohiro Kaku

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

Only notable role is that of Yoshio Tachibana from Crow's Blood. Delete or redirect to Crow's Blood. Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:50, 8 December 2016 (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/2016 December 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An actual actor who acts in notable films, so whether he's been in notable cartoons is rather besides the point. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, except I didn't nominate the subject for his lack of work in cartoons/anime. It's based on the lack of significant roles. Also, having one article mention the subject does not equate to notability. That article was pretty much an overview of the movie, rather than the subject. Also, Household X is not notable. Where did you even get the idea that it is? You clearly lack an understanding of WP:NACTOR. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not every actor can be a scalp for your userpage. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on my userpage is irrelevant to the nom. Focus, or cease to participate. If you don't have any witty counterarguments to fire at me, then don't say a single word. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you think a film screened in the Berlin Film Festival Forum is not notable, there really isn't anything very much I can say. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If "significant" sources like those are so easily found, then I really do wonder why those that are interested in the subject did not bother to integrate them in the article. Or for that matter, the article creator... why didn't they bother to write a more sizable article in the first place? It's always when an article is nommed that people bother to look for sources. Disappointing, really. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is disappointing, especially with the onus created by WP:BEFORE. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 08:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andreas, the Berlin International Film Festival is a major deal. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andreas. --Adam in MO Talk 02:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep stars in a number of live-action films and some anime too. Household X (star billing), Hana and Alice (both live-action and the anime), Gantz: O (anime film, main char), Kyofu (star billing). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I didn't find anything myself as most of the roles seemed to be minor characters however Andreas and Angus have clearly had better luck. Clearly notable.SephyTheThird (talk) 11:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per well laid-out and defended rationales of Andreas Philopater--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has, in addition to this crow blood thing role, an important role in a live action movie with its own well-written article (Hana and Alice), and, taken together with the notable role mentioned in the nomination itself, that makes two notable roles. Two counts as multiple, passing the actor restriction. Plus, the role in the Berlin thing seems to be important.--Yellow Diamond's Pearl (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Naoya Iwahashi

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

JP article is a stub; no strong sources to help assert the subject's notability. No notable roles as far as the eye can see. Subject is not notable enough to warrant his article at this time. No links to redirect to since the subject does not even have a single notable role to speak of. Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC) _{Note to reader:This user is now tbanned from these discussions please don't respond to them directly as they can not reply and it could possibly be triggering for them. --Adam in MO Talk 04:05, 16 December 2016 (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/2016 December 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable voice actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no obvious news articles to support any major roles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear notable.SephyTheThird (talk) 11:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List_of_Pokémon_anime_characters#Rivals. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyotaka Furushima

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

No notability. Only having Paul from the Pokemon anime series as a main does not warrant the subject their own independent page. Delete or redirect to Paul. Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC) _{Note to reader:This user is now tbanned from these discussions please don't respond to them directly as they can not reply and it could possibly be triggering for them. --Adam in MO Talk 04:05, 16 December 2016 (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/2016 December 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable voice actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. I don't see any notable roles in other productions besides Pokemon. He's in Corpse Princess but his character isn't a major one despite being recurring. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Clear Target article, could have been redirected boldly.SephyTheThird (talk) 11:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nominator's rationale, I don't see any reason why this wasn't done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. --Adam in MO Talk 04:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article is found to be both promotional in nature and lacking in notability, and is therefore unfit for inclusion in this encyclopedia. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Errett

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

Although this at first may seem like an informative and sourced article, it's in fact advertising for a woman whose career and company involvements have been advertising and advertising-motivated at that, therefore there's simply nothing to suggest both genuine substance and guarantees from PR advertising. The articles listed here, as it is, simply consist of published and republished PR information and quotes, and my own searches have found such, one of them was NYT....but it was only a 2013 interview. In every single of these found, it was obvious advertising by either saying "Money acquired for company funding", "She will offer you business advice!", "Here's her life and business story from her own words!" and that was all in 3 pages.

Because it's obvious this article is part of an advertising campaign, WP:SPAM and WP:NOT apply, any named publications or republished advertising be damned, because we're simply not a business listing especially when it's simply to list their chronologically listed business positions as this article shows. There's no genuine improvements from simply adding cosmetics to "make it better" because it would still in fact be an advertisement. SwisterTwister talk 02:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable PR business person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~Weak delete~~ - I am finding material that goes back over her career. I think the way that the introduction is worded and the last couple of sentences in the career section do make it sound very promotional. Another issue is that she's made a dramatic career change, but that success does not appear to be realized yet. The article was created as part of WikiProject Articles for creation.--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon Megalibrarygirl's comments I change it to keep. I didn't think the article was started for promotional reasons, either. I do think, though, that the exclusion of the information in her intro that does make her notable - and the focus on her new project does make it seem promotional. I put a clean-up tag on the article and removed the part in her career section that I thought was a tone issue.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of reliable sources in the article already, including Forbes and SFGate. There are more sources in HighBeam, such as Advocate and Chicago Tribune. As CaroleHenson mentioned, there is coverage over time about her as well and it was vetted through the AfC process. If the article seems too promotional in tone to the nominator and those voting delete, it would be better to copyedit or tag the article. AfD is to determine notability, not whether an article is well-written. This article is not promotional enough in tone either, to qualify for any of the arguments there, either. Passes GNG clearly. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to address the WP:SPAM and WP:NOT claim more directly. I don't see that in this article. However, all of those kind of links that seem "promotional" could still be pulled out and using Forbes and other RS, there is enough for this article to pass GNG. I think someone wrote this because a successful lesbian CEO is an interesting topic, not for advertising. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since apparently no one else is commenting, I will note that the Keep vote are literally basically saying "Yes, let's accept it as advertising as long as there are sources listed!" The Forbes is in fact at one of their freelancing journalism sections, so it's not genuine news, and it's the mirroring image in everything else, so it shows that when an article has to blatantly overemphasize with this, it shows it's simply overblown attempts at PR hence why WP:NOT applies: We are not a PR webhost or a random advertising business listing, GNG and RS be damned. SwisterTwister talk 21:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things.

I absolutely was not meaning to say, and never would say, "Yes, let's accept it as advertising as long as there are sources listed!" I am not seeing your point about Forbes. It says that the author is a staff member in the byline and the bio says "I am a New York City-based journalist and staff writer for Forbes Magazine and Forbes.com covering leadership."
Her rolling out a new product is not notable - and I don't judge her by that - I am looking at the information found about her career before then. This absolutely isn't a strong "keep" for me, though.
Are you saying, then, that if the tone of an article is too promotional, we need to delete it? Fixing it is not an acceptable solution? (By the way, I moved the content with the strongest promotional tone to the talk page - perhaps there is other information there that could be mined for encyclopedic content).
There was a request to create this article - vs. someone jumping in and making the article as they thought it needed to be created. I am seeing a minor, but steady interest in the subject of the article, so what is the harm in fixing it and keeping it around?--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I had seen SwisterTwister's comment earlier, CaroleHenson. I do not see that the article is PR in any way at all. GNG is passed when a subject has been covered in RS over time. She has that. In my opinion, SwisterTwister, you are arguing RS and GNG be damned because you have decided this article is "promotional" no matter what other editors have shown to be the contrary. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This actually is advertising, and I'm amazed at the option that an article centered around " the product was designed to be an affordable salon-quality product with better ingredients." is encyclopedic information. The additional material is not worth saving either--it's notes about the various boards she's served on, and a list of prior positions, with unprovable claims for her influence in them, The place for this sort of material is Who's who in America or an Alumni magazine. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - DGG, That may be. I don't have a strong feeling about this one and have waffled once already. For now, I edited the section you were mentioning here.—CaroleHenson (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — The sources are mostly about the companies or are self-published (e.g., the Forbes articles are written by her, but there's no indication she'd pass WP:JOURNALIST) or are PR (at least one of which is literally published on the PR firm's site). The only one with any merit toward WP:GNG/WP:BIO might be the nytimes one; possibly also sfgate's, but those are by no means numerous or indicative of clear notability. It also reads like (and is laid out like) a promotional resume, even with the fluff recently cut out. --slakr^\ talk / 03:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG/WP:BIO. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, the sources are not good here and the intention to promote the subject seems to be clear if you read the sources carefully. I also see a lot of them written by her - which doesn't help towards notability. Among the ones in better sources, Sfgate seems to be about a reporter musing about the subject's wedding - with no indication as to why it is significant. (There are loads of reports about interesting local weddings in the newspaper here, but that wouldn't make the subject notable). The only other RS is nytimes but it is an interview and secondary sources are required. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WonderSwan#Technical specifications. czar 08:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WonderWitch

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

Fails WP:PRODUCT. Article contains no references whatsoever. Too few WP:RS online. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

would it make sense to merge it into the Wonderswan article? Luvcraft (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to merge exactly? The entire article is unsourced. --The1337gamer (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[12] is a WP:RS at least mentioning it. I suspect there may be other period pieces referring to WonderWitch. Merge and redirect (as appropriate) to WonderSwan. --Izno (talk) 13:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[13] also. Definitely worth a mention at the minimum. --Izno (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see the NL reference is already included. There is also [14]. --Izno (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cerebellum (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Takkō Ishimori

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

Only notable role as far as the eye can see is Sengoku from One Piece. Nothing else strikes as notable. Delete or redirect to Sengoku. Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

_{Note to reader:This user is now tbanned from these discussionw please don't respond to them directly as they can not reply and it could possibly be triggering for them. --Adam in MO Talk 04:07, 16 December 2016 (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/2016 December 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a more detailed biography of this person on ja:wiki. I also see some major dubbing roles that would make this person pass WP:ENT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese dubbing roles of Western live action movies are not notable. An unsourced or poorly written bio means failure of WP:BIO, even in JP wiki. Now, assuming that the subject's bio in JP wiki is actually ok, if the subject is deemed to only be notable as the role of Sengoku, then regardless of how sizable the bio is, it still won't save the article. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The assertion that "Japanese dubbing roles of Western live action movies are not notable" is simply that - an assertion. Live-action dubbing is an important part of film industries in many non-English-speaking countries. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not just an assertion. It has been used as an argument to delete two articles off of the encyclopedia. See AFD 1 and AFD 2. Your claim on dubbing being an important part of film industries in non-English speaking countries is again, completely baseless, as pointed out in AFD 1. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just one article, but there are plenty more. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. It doesn't say anything about Japanese dubbing of foreign films, which is the main concern here. Also irrelevant in the sense that you have not provided more sources that proves your point. This is a classic argument of WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Originally I was going to pick ups on this point but between the difficulty in finding coverage one way or another, the literal handful of people who have western notability for their dubbing of live action (I can only name two) and the credit roles here it doesn't seem necessary to go over. I fully agree about the concept, but keeping the article over it with those credits doesn't make much sense. SephyTheThird (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think Andreas is right here. Assuming that voice overs of western films aren't notable reeks of regional bias.--Adam in MO Talk 02:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have proof that it is, and you're ignoring the fact that it has been used as an effective argument in two AFDs, which are listed above. Read again. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is this afd. WP doesn't operate by stare decisis. By the way, it'd be great if you dropped the condescention.--Adam in MO Talk 03:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't hurt to reference previous AFDs on what is constituted as an effective argument. If it has been proven to be an effective argument, it could easily be applied on all similar articles. But because you haven't, your counterargument means nothing and it is weightless. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we will see how that works out here. Regardless you can drop the condescension.--Adam in MO Talk 03:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Using other deleted articles as a justification for deleting a different article is not a particularly good reasoning. Every article is different and should be viewed as an individual. Stating that your argument has already lead to a deletion is a clear implication of bias.SephyTheThird (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sengoku (One Piece). Dub roles are fine, that he is mentioned as the Sorting Hat for the Harry Potter film dubs is sourced. [15] Buzzer Beater role as Yoshimune is main cast. But other than that, his main role is from One Piece, which he is strongly associated with, and that isn't much to write an article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The dubbing of western works are not immediately notable enough. The truth is if there is any coverage it is almost certainly buried in Japanese media coverage which is likely to be unavailable. If someone comes across something that shows they are notable then it can be restored and added. Sengoku is his main notable role so this is the likely outcome. This should never have been an afd as it would have been safely covered by WP:BRD.SephyTheThird (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per well laid-out and defended rationales of Adamfinmo--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, except his points aren't valid. He has yet to prove his points, and I've already dismissed them due to lack of proof. Don't vote to keep an article if you can't be bothered to be objective about the subject himself. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Do not redirect to an article on a single role. That is not going to serve a reader looking for information on this voice actor. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're not IMDB. We don't aim to archive every actor on the planet. If a subject is deemed to be non-notable, then they will not have a page here. If a reader wants to look up info for this particular voice actor, they may do so outside of this website. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the rationales by Adamfinmo. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kōichi Nagano

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

Subject's only notable role is that of Ryokan Kurita from Eyeshield 21. Article's claim on the subject being famous for his roles is unsourced, and unfounded. Delete or redirect to Ryokan Kurita. Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC) _{Note to reader:This user is now tbanned from these discussions please don't respond to them directly as they can not reply and it could possibly be triggering for them. --Adam in MO Talk 04:05, 16 December 2016 (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/2016 December 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable voice actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see much. He voices Helmeppo a recurring but not terribly major character in One Piece. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kazumi Tanaka

AfDs for this article:

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

Just because there's news that detail the subject's death, that doesn't mean he's actually all that notable. There are no notable roles of the subject to speak of. At all. Due to the subject being non-notable by not even having a singular notable role, I can't even suggest a role to redirect the subject to. Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC) _{Note to reader:This user is now tbanned from these discussions please don't respond to them directly as they can not reply and it could possibly be triggering for them. --Adam in MO Talk 04:05, 16 December 2016 (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/2016 December 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of roles but all supporting or minor. JA wikipedia article is a stub that doesn't have much development for a non-BLP. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.SephyTheThird (talk) 11:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RJ Dheena

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. The only slight claim of credibility is that the subject is a Guinness World Record holder, but this was not well covered by mainstream, third-party sources, and, taking into account WP:BLP1E, is not enough to achieve notability. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 00:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is not really a case of BIO1E. First he made it to Limca Book of Records in 2007 for running a radio show continuously for 92.7hrs (source); then next year in 2008, Guinness World Records, when he was on air for 168hrs (source).

There are coverage which discussed him before he broke the record and after^{(click "next")} in multiple mainstream reliable sources. There are also quite a few independent coverage (from world record) of him, like this one.

One should notice that the time-frame within which he was covered by multiple reliable sources spans for a decade. Additionally, these are only English-language sources; his coverage should be at least double in number in Tamil language (language of the region he belongs to).

Radio Jockeys do not compose music or sing songs or do anything related to the music industry. They just play music and talks about them in breaks. WP:MUSICBIO is completely irrelevant to this line of profession. They should be judged in respect to WP:GNG which in my opinion has been established by above sources (which are definitely not all available sources). Anup [Talk] 04:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as one-line into Radio personality for his world record purpose. Rest no notability. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Radio personality as a compromise. Other than the records, there is not a lot of information available about the subject in sources (e.g. [16], [17]). The Radio personality article presently has no mentions of the Limca Book of Records or Guinness World Records, so a merge will improve that article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep and try to expand, but merge is a poor choice here. It's like merging minor authors to the general page of "author" It is of almost no actual use. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 23:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can merge some author who holds the record for writing the longest book ever and if that's the only notable thing he has done or a painter who has painted the longest canvas painting and so on.... "Try to expand" is actually of almost no use because all the trivia about him can be added. I can listen to his radio show someday and mention in his article that he admires singers like Lata Mangeshkar, Balamuralikrishna and so on... We can "expand" by writing his views which he expressed on his show about flood relief activities in Chennai or how truck regulations should be made strict so they don't run over people and so on.... §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RECENTISM and WP:BLP1E. The merge suggested above doesn't make sense to me. The proposed merge target is about the general concept. Adding a line or two about his specific, non-notable, example, would violate WP:UNDUE. Perhaps if there was a List of radio personalities, it might make sense to redirect/merge to that. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cerebellum (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Shira Teitel

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

does not meet standard of notability Horsewhipser (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closure comment - I originally closed as Speedy Keep due to the noms rationale (I believed it was more or less WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE) however I was asked by an admin to reopen so am reopening and relisting, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearer rationale: The sources do not provide the significant coverage required by the notability standard. A handful of promotional articles appearing around the same time, and tied directly to a book release, in my opinion, straddles the line of notability, but does not cross it. All other sources, such as author pages on Al Jazeera or Popular Science are clearly self-published. Horsewhipser (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of level of coverage needed to pass general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking to generate discussion on article's notability regarding the following points from Notability (People):

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

- Does not meet this standard, no sources supporting.

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.

- Does not meet this standard, no sources supporting

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

- Although this person has written a book, it is not the subject of an independent or notable work, nor is it used as support or citation anywhere.

The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

- Does not meet this standard, no sources supporting.

Horsewhipser (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Horsewhipser you created your account especially for the purpose of nominating the page for deletion? Just curious. Avaya1 (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya1 I have contributed without an account for two years but you cannot nominate a page for deletion without one. Now that it exists I will continue editing from this account.Horsewhipser (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She has a secondary source profile written about her in Australia's oldest newspaper, The Sydney Morning Herald.[18]. She has a secondary source biographical interview in Popular Science,[19] and an article written about her in Cosmos Magazine.[20] She has a book published by Bloomsbury Publishing,[21] reviewed in major newspapers. She is one of the main hosts on Discovery Channel's DNews. She fulfils the criteria for notability for an article and has clear secondary source biographic coverage in notable sources (Sydney Morning Herald, Popular Science, Cosmos Magazine). Avaya1 (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya1 Thank you for responding. The timing of these three biographical sources are appear to be based on publicist effort, not general notability. Book releases are often timed with article releases like this, and the lack of notable coverage beyond the publication of her book is suspect. Additionally, the "Discovery Channel's DNews", which is a YouTube channel, does not appear to be notable enough for even its own page, although that is open for future draft and debate. In my opinion, this is a non-notable author being promoted by their publisher, which is not appropriate for a stand-alone page. I would Suggest merging with "Discovery Channel's DNews" perhaps, but that page does not (yet) exist. Horsewhipser (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary source articles, although they involve or are about her book, were not published at the same time, but are spread over a year. And the fact she has such interviews and profiles written in notable secondary sources, makes her more notable in terms of secondary sources than many other journalists who have pages on wikipedia. So does having a book published by Bloombury, which is the reason she got such secondary source coverage. Avaya1 (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having one book published does not appear to meet the standard of notability. Additionally, the dates of the three articles are January 13th, 2016, July 7th, 2016, and July 9th, 2016. The first comes the day after the publication of the book, according to Amazon.com [22]. The next two are only two days apart. She may have several secondary sources, but as mentioned before, they show signs of book-related publicity rather than general notability. If there were alternative independent sources of coverage, that would help the notability argument. Additionally, I cannot find pages for anyone at her level of notability at the Discovery Channel, such as the other host in the source provided, which would lead me to believe it is a non-notable role. Horsewhipser (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She's been one of the main hosts of DNews in the past (last year she was one of their most regular presenters). And your argument about the timing of secondary sources is pure WP:OR. There is coverage in notable secondary sources and that's that. Avaya1 (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's all very well and good, but why would a host of something that is not itself notable, be notable? And I struggle to see the significance of a single book being notable as well. Simply put, this person may have secondary sources, but altogether does not meet the Wikipedia standard, as detailed in WP:BIO. Horsewhipser (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include: [23], [24], [25], [26]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The Amy_Shira_Teitel article clearly meets General notability guideline and WP:PEOPLE with reliable sources by Wikipedia standards finding her significantly interesting to write about over time. Also, the number of times that she is quoted in the media over 5 years makes it clear that her book published in 2016 is not a flash in the pan (one time lucky break) but that their is a general interest in her writing. Additionally, comment about the media coverage of her book being promoted by a publicist is a red herring. The media picks and chooses which people to profile as books are released. This selection process works hand in hand with Wikipedia policy to let these secondary sources fact check and gauge whether a topic is of significant interest to have a standalone Wikipedia article. The bottomline is that the media has written about and quoted Amy Shira Teitel with depth and frequency to show that she is "worthy of notice" and "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 17:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found more sources and some reviews of her work, which I added directly to the article. Passes GNG and NAUTHOR with reviews of her work. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeannine Dalton

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

This article has some of the worst sourcing and style ever. It is basically saying "this person had daughters who did such and such, and we will make most of the article about it, and oh, she was once Miss North Carolina USA." That is the only actual claim to notability, and it is not enough to establish notability. A google search under both her maiden and married name did not show up any better sources. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a trivial and unconvincing career with everything trivial and unconvincing since she only participated in the pageant, and that's it. We never bestow inherited notability because of it. SwisterTwister talk 16:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -per points mentioned above regarding notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Britt Boyse

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

Boyse was Miss Missouri USA. This alone is not enough to establish notability. The coverage there is all one event. Additional coverage is very hit and miss from my google searches. Her being the executive director for Miss Arizona USA is just not enough to establish notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Lekkakos

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

Lekkakos has two claims to notability. One is being Miss Massachusetts USA. This is not enough on its own to establish notability. It is also not where the sourcing mainly points. The main thrust of the sources is to establishing notability based on running a small business. While there is a bit of coverage of this, it all seems to be extremely local from what I could find and not enough to establish general notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as we've established this as it is, and the one pageant or anything from it, is not inherited notability for her at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being a beauty pageant winner and owner of a skin care business is not enough in itself to prove notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Chiaraluna

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

Chiaraluna's lone claim to almost notability is being Miss Pennsylvania USA, but this alone is not enough. Beyond that she was a journalist, although the details of her career remain obscure, and the PR rep for Seneca Valley School district, a district with 7,500 students. I am not sure any school district PR rep is notable, but not at this level. The only worthwhile additional source I found in my google search was the paid obituary of her father, so nothing to show she is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being a beauty pageant winner is not enough in itself to prove notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as participating in one event is certainly not close to any conceivable notability at all. SwisterTwister talk 23:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Lehman

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

Lehman was Miss Pennsylvania USA. This title is not alone enough to convey notability, and the coverage of her is if anything light for such a title. She has worked as a model/actress in commericals. My searches for additional sources came up with nothing, and there is no indication that she has done anything or been covered enough to be considered notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom, the always eloquent @John Pack Lambert. Quis separabit? 02:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not otherwise notable, and state-level win is not a sufficient claim to notability by itself. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom, and K.e.Coffman, no lasting notability here. Kierzek (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was not able to find enough to prove notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as entirely trivial based from trivial participations in minor pageants. SwisterTwister talk 23:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlin Morrall

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

Morrall was Miss Wisconsin USA. This alone is not enough to establish notability. Her local morning traffic reporting position does not seem to be notable. I did find a passing reference to her leaving that position in an article in the Milwaukie Journal Sentinel, but I don't think that is the type of coverage we need to pass GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree, Miss Wisconsin USA can be enough with proper citations. Plus she was very close in the Miss Wisconsin title several times helps. The article meets WP:GNG with articles about her pageantry in several reputable Wisconsin newspapers in different communities. Royal broil 03:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For this to move beyond localized one event, we would either need coverage outside Wisconsin, or we would need coverage for something other than being Miss Wisconsin. Being a non-winner does not get anything aproaching significant coverage anywhere and so can not be cited for anything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following list should show that Miss Insert State here is not a notable award. There has been a huge number of discussions over the last six months that establish this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashlee Baracy (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abby Hancock, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Crain, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Halfman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beth Stomps, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dellynne Catching are just a few. That is not delving into the very closely related Miss instert state USA winners, who even more articles on have been deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a state level pageant win is insufficient for notability as shown at numerous prior AfDs. Coverage is all routine & WP:MILL: "local resident gets award". Such pages are routinely deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, not a vote. There is a similar issue with Jodi Unruh, also listed on journalism right now, having won a Miss Oregon pageant. I don't vote on pageants and so I really do not know if this state-level win qualifies a person for notability. And I do not have an opinion about this. But I do think the two articles should be treated equally. Crtew (talk)
Delete - Being a beauty pageant winner and traffic reporter is not enough in itself to prove notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a trivial and unconvincing article about a state-focused pageant. SwisterTwister talk 23:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Johnson

AfDs for this article:

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

Johnson was Miss Pennsylvania USA, but this is not on its own enough to demonstrate notability. She owned a restaurant in Pennsylvania, but nothing suggests doing so rises to the level of notability. She was also on a cooking reality show, but that is not enough to make she notable. A google search for additional sources showed up mainly social media postings reflecting the fact she was Miss Pennsylvania USA, more in a directory way than in any substantive way. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- nothing stands out about this pageant contestant; per prior outcomes, such pages are routinely deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no lasting notability shown; trivia. Kierzek (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Being a beauty pageant winner is not enough in itself to prove notability. I am not finding much about her efforts for her restaurant or nonprofit.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as all we have to base it here is a mere participating in a trivial pageant. SwisterTwister talk 23:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akari Hibino

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

Only notable role is title character Tsubasa Ozora from Captain Tsubasa. Delete or redirect to Tsubasa Ozora. Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC) _{Note to reader:This user is now tbanned from these discussions please don't respond to them directly as they can not reply and it could possibly be triggering for them. --Adam in MO Talk 04:05, 16 December 2016 (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/2016 December 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance this could have been safely redirected boldly. I'm not sure the afd was necessary.SephyTheThird (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd much rather the consensus decides what to do with the article, to be honest. Bold redirects isn't my thing - nomming articles for deletion is, however. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already told you though that a redirect isn't the same thing as deletion. With the click of an "Undo" button by someone who has new referenced info/ect... the article is back to the way it was. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if that were to happen, I'd place a speedy deletion tag. An article that has shown next to no improvement from the last deleted copy meets the criteria for speedy deletion. Doesn't matter how many times people wish to redirect it. I'll just redo the speedy deletion process over and over again until they learn they must improve the article, first. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again a redirect isn't a deletion so WP:CSD wouldn't apply. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it would. If people revert the redirect without making any improvements to the article, then that's definitely grounds for speedy deletion. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely wrong about that. That is fractally wrong. There are multitude of reasons to revert a redirect and not make improvements. Preparations for a merge, research etc. Perhaps just a belief that the article redirect should be discussed per the brd cycle.--Adam in MO Talk 10:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) You are clearly clueless about WP:G4. What I've mentioned above is exactly what G4 is. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't even close to G4. A redirect doesn't constitute a deletion. You have been told this several times. CIR seems to be an issue here.--Adam in MO Talk 03:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She also voice Hikaru in the Kimagure Orange Road OVAs. That's about as "main character" as you can get since the character is one of three main characters. Keep due to voicing two main characters. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you look into the subject and sources again. Akari has only voiced as Hikaru in ONE Shonen Jump special for the Orange Road series. The special was aired before the main series, which spanned for 48 episodes. That isn't our idea of notability. All subsequent Orange Road media was voiced by Eriko Hara. There is an 8 EP OVA series, produced after the conclusion of the original 48 EP series, but Akari was never in charge of that. It was Eriko, the MAIN voice of Hikaru. Usually, voice actors that participate in a promotional piece don't get to reprise their roles in the main series (which I believe to be the case for Orange Road). So if the subject is only known for a single majorly notable role, Tsubasa; and just one insignificant special, only to be replaced later on, chalking it all up, does that mean the subject is notable? Please, do think about it. Also, even if the subject did voice two main roles in two notable productions, that still isn't our idea of meeting the WP:NACTOR criteria. Having only two main roles isn't all that notable. Have at least three, then we could debate if that's exactly notable. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, she was the first to play that main role, and that was the only release for a year and a half. It was clearly a separate release. I know you disagree, so you don't need to launch into some TL;DR rebuttal, or talk down to me as if I'm some idiot that doesn't know anything and should therefore bow to the greater wisdom that you so obviously have. You disagree. That's fine. Just leave it at that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That so called main role is just about as significant as a small time adaption of a single OVA. You're just pushing it because you want to keep some poorly structured article, and not just that, an article about a seiyu that has obviously not made groundbreaking achievements in the industry. By that logic, many poorly written seiyu articles deserve to be kept. Really. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's an OVA for KOR. Yes, Hikaru is a starring character, but the OVA is about the equivalent of a pilot episode. Still, a pilot's a pilot, and if it weren't for the OVA, there wouldn't be an anime for this rather popular series. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This actress passes WP:ENT with two major roles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even read my counterargument to Joe? I just explained how insignificant that other so called "main" role is. It's really no different than being a stand in for the main actress for one episode in a long series, when you think about it. WP:ENT is inapplicable when all the subject has is two main roles. And in this case, one of them isn't even significant. Tsubasa is clearly notable; so notable that the character himself even has his own standalone article. But Hikaru for just one episode? Yeah, no. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This actress has been in several notable productions and a few major roles. The article has some sourcing issues but there is good hope for it. --Adam in MO Talk 09:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, "several notable productions"? Have you even read my rebuttals? I've already analyzed the subject. Look. Just read my responses. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really need to harass people and question them in such a rude manner? Your comments boil down to, "You are an idiot. I already did all the research so all you need to do is believe me because I'm obviously much smarter than you." Please learn to treat everyone with respect, even those who disagree with you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, except some of what I've said are facts, and not my personal opinion. Anyone's opinion means nothing in the face of facts. And just for clarification - fact: The subject has only voiced as Hikaru in a single episode of Orange Road. Opinion: Because of that, I deem the subject's role on Hikaru as insignificant compared to Eriko, Hikaru's main voice.

The thing is, one of the guidelines in WP:NACTOR states that a subject is deemed notable when they have participated in multiple notable productions. Captain Tsubasa is clearly notable; we've already established that. But can we actually assume that one small time Shonen Jump special compared to the main series and the finale movies is notable? Yeah, that's not notable. At all. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really think that a short term T-ban would be beneficial here looking at some of the comments. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Participants in an AFD get questioned all the time. If you're seriously offended by that, I'm not sure if AFD discussions is where you wanna be in. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah they get questioned but not to the point of rudeness/borderline verbal abuse. I usually see constructive criticism in AfD discussions, anyways this is a discussion for another place. Please know that you are stepping on more feet and eventually it can come back at you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on the than Knowledgekid87, we clearly have a problem here. It should be in another forum though--Adam in MO Talk 02:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not impressed by "stand-in" analogy, even after thinking about it. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Be unimpressed all you want. But a fact is a fact. You are free to ignore it, but it just shows how utterly narrowminded you are. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the rude attacks. If you have something productive to say, say it. If all you're going to do is attempt to show how superior you are, then stuff a sock in it. There's no need to be such a jerk. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Nihonjoe. No name-calling please. It's not constructive. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ignore it. I did you the courtesy of reflecting upon it, as you asked. This process of cogitation indicates to me that it isn't a fact at all – it's an analogy, and a pretty lame one. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that you still don't understand what I meant by "fact", Andreas. It's a fact that the subject only voiced as Hikaru in a single special, and replaced later on by Eriko in all subsequent media. As I've said, you are free to ignore that fact, but it just shows that you're voting before having done prior research. Don't jump onto the keep bandwagon if you don't know what you're getting yourself into. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your contention is that Hikaru is not a main character? Sorry, I somehow missed that. I'm not sure that's a fact, either though. It looks more like a judgement call. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And this is why I suggest that you actually learn to read every single word I write before you say anything. Yes, that's a main role, but only for a single episode. Just about as significant as a character of the day, you know, characters that have a major driving force in a single episode, only to disappear off the face of the earth in the remainder of the series. What I am trying to say is, even main roles have varying levels of significance. Y'all are saying as if the subject's so called achievement in only having done Hikaru in just ONE episode is about as significant as her other role Tsubasa, or for that matter, Eriko, the MAIN voice of Hikaru. In the case of Eriko, it should be noted that she voiced for Hikaru for 56 episodes (including the OVAs) and 2 movies. Akari's role on the same character is obviously insignificant compared to her. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, nobody much cares to read your walls of TLDR. Get on that cluebus and ride it as far as it will take you.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Esper Mami role Konpoco is starring, main character's pet / mascot. [27] And Borgman she plays Shinji who is listed in the main cast. [28] Project A-Ko, she plays a regular character that is in that video franchise. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:Ent. SephyTheThird (talk) 11:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per well laid-out and defended rationales of Andreas Philopater, and to combat career deletionists--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to her main role, this OVA thing, in my opinion, is satisfactory as she was the first to voice said character, rather than just being a replacement. --Yellow Diamond (talk) 04:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LauRen Merola

AfDs for this article:

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

Merola was Miss Pennsylvania USA. This is not a title that is enough to establish notability. The sources in the article do not add up to enough to pass general notability guidelines. My search for more sources didn't find anything. She modeled apparently with Miami based organizations for 5 years, but nothing about that got reliable source coverage in a way to establish notability. She is now an employee for a company that trains people to win beauty pageants. However that is only sourced to the companies PR ad to try to convince people to buy their services. The previously nomination was a group one, that seems to pre-date the current developing consensus that beauty pageant contestants are not notable without widespread coverage. Beyond that, it was keep because in some cases some of those nominated might be notable, not a default declaration that all were notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pagent, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- un unremarkable beauty pageant career is insufficient claim of notability, per prior outcomes. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is not enough to prove notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as entirely trivial and unconvincing apart from the minor pageant participating. SwisterTwister talk 23:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Billings

AfDs for this article:

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

Billings was Miss Pennsylvania USA. This is not a high enough title to grant notability. The rest of her background is even further from being notable, and none of the coverage rises to the level of general notability guidelines. A google search showed her webpage and related non-reliable sources. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pagent, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per outcomes of prior AfDs. Pages on state level pageant winners are routinely deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Being a beauty pageant winner is not enough in itself to prove notability. I see a little bit about her work with nonprofits, but not nearly enough to prove notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOT applies given we are certainly not a pageant webhost for every single pageant member. SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Kennick

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

Kennick was Miss Utah USA, but that is not enough to make her notable. She is also a local news anchor in the south-west Texas market, but that is not enough to establish notability. The sources do not pass the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pagent, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a page on unremarkable individual with no indications of notability or significance. State-level pageant win is an insufficient claim of notability, per prior AfD outcomes. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am seeing some sources for her role in the media (tv and radio) and as a member of LDS, but not enough to establish notability at this time.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's clear she's only trivially known as a minor participant. SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Uncontested. Sandstein 15:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hatschi-Waldera

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it difficult to assess this, on the one hand there is not much of an on-line footprint, on the other hand the GDR charts available seem to only show the Top 50 of the year while the song is described in retrospect as a hit and she was invited to the Czech Republic for a performance (read: lip-synching as it was the custom back then). I want to say "keep" due to its historic significance but can't lay my fingers on solid proof. Agathoclea (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A redirect can be discussed/performed at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

13 Reasons Why

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

Does this fall under the heading of "Too Soon"?
It is a tv show that isn't going to be aired for months. Kellymoat (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The title has been confirmed and is set to release in 2017. Many show pages exist for future/announced titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robosalt (talk • contribs) 20:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a big fan of using "but other people are doing it" as an excuse. Kellymoat (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like there has been enough coverage to justify the article's existence. I may edit the 13 Reasons Why page to remove anything that falls under "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball," but I would NOT support deletion of the entire article. *Seen a Mike * 22:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to Thirteen Reasons Why. Hang googles (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability guidelines. It has a title/cast/director/writer/showrunners. This isn't just an article with a title and nothing more; there is actually a fair amount of info for an upcoming TV show. I don't really see any reason for it to be deleted at all. Somethingwickedly (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having a cast and producers isn't evidence of notability, but having reliable, independent sources is. Deadline and MTV News have covered this, so it passes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daral clan

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

I couldn't establish that this is a notable topic; I could find no reliable sources to verify it. Boleyn (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no idea if it is spelled Drall or Daral but either way there is no evidence of notability Spiderone 19:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced article and clan name does not appear to be present even in specialist ethnographic sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jatrana

AfDs for this article:

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

I couldn't find reliable sources to verify its notability. 1st AfD attracted no responses unfortunately. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga. Boleyn (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I concur there's no convincing substance to confirm both existence for an article and an acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 19:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of existence let alone notability Spiderone 19:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AlanAsound

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

Un remarkable musician does not meet WP:MUSICBIO criteria and does not meet WP:GNG a google search turns up nothing of any real interest. The links date from 2010. Domdeparis (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response: When googling 'AlanAsound' you get:

Official Twitter account: Last upload 33min ago
Wikipedia: Last visit 14/11/16
Official Soundcloud: Last upload 8/1/15; Next upload announced for 26/12/16
Official Instagram: Last upload 35 min ago
Official Facebook: Last upload 35min ago
Official Bandcamp: Last upload 8/1/15; Next upload announced for 26/12/16
Official Youtube: Last upload 1 month ago

etc. The first two pages contain only link related to the artist. AlanAsound in an up and coming artist with several press coverage, and a well-known artist in the London gay scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colingoupil (talk • contribs) 17:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Colingoupil: these are all social media websites and not WP:SECONDARYSOURCE. Wikipedia is not a secondary source either. Domdeparis (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would published articles be accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colingoupil (talk • contribs) 17:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:MUSICBIO for the different criteria. If he does not meet the criteria as a musician then you have to prove that he meets the WP:GNG. take some time to read these pages, that should help you. Just so yo know it is not because an article has existed for a while that it automatically has its place in Wikipedia. Domdeparis (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC) p.s. Please sign your comments on talk pages.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Here are a few publications with a Wikipedia page in which AlanAsound was mentioned:

Coventry Telegraph https://twitter.com/covtelegraph/status/606207499822198784 2015
Wagmag http://online.flipbuilder.com/kfht/zxtz/#p=40 2015
Bent (magazine) http://mag.bent.com/2015/01/let-alan-a-lead-you-astray/ 2015
News and Star http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/First-Cumbria-Pride-in-Carlisle-city-centre-hailed-success-d75b8d42-e38d-4332-946b-9bafa88554cc-ds 2014
Many more articles in Boyz (magazine) Time Out (magazine) QX (British magazine) which cannot be found on the internet as old issues don't appear on the magazines' websites.

AlanAsound also appeared on the front cover of the East End Review (part of Hackney Citizen newspaper) and Boyz Magazine for the release of his previous albums. He was also mentioned in many more magazines, newspapers and blog without a Wikipedia page. All the press releases can be found on: https://www.facebook.com/47341205682/photos/?tab=album&album_id=10150260357130683 I am available should you need more information. I worked closely with the artist in question, doing his PR and communication. @colingoupil ~~colingoupil~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colingoupil (talk • contribs) 20:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable singer-songwriter. The sources that Colingoupil has provided do not actually establish notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a good fit to WP:FACEBOOKBAND: "up and coming artist" with no WP:RS and supported mainly by social media links and passing mentions. Nothing says he can't have and article later. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aqua Blue Sport. Already performed by User:Seacactus 13. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 20:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Team Aqua Blue Sport

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

Duplication of subject matter: this was created after Aqua Blue Sport, which has been kept more up to date, and seems to be a more accurate rendition of the team name. Kevin McE (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge You don't need to list it for deletion. Just merge the content and create a redirect. --Racklever (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Cecil

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

Cecil was Miss California in 2012. All the coverage is related to that. While there is an article from the LA Times, it exists purely because she won the title and tells little about her, it is not the type of indepth coverage we would want to pass GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per prior AfD outcomes, pages on state-level pageant wins are routinely deleted, unless the subject is notable for something else. This is not the case here. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Being a beauty pageant winner is not enough in itself to prove notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as absolutely trivial and unconvincing outside of the pageant claims. SwisterTwister talk 23:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notablility other than the pageant. Does not pass WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 05:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accutension

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

no evidence that this line of products is particualrly notable DGG ( talk ) 08:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be advertising for this brand/app. The technique may be notable, but not this product/app brand which makes use of it. It fails WP:PRODUCT pretty much outright. The coverage of this app is almost non-existing. There is exactly one article at geektime.com (which I dont think is RS), and one article at the Japanese cnet (here). Apart from that there is 0 reception, not even in non RS: Since this is a software/app related product, I doubt there is additional coverage in offline media. Since this app fails WP:GNG very clearly, I think the article should be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this suggests only existing as a listing so WP:NOT applies, basically nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 20:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Close-Up (toothpaste)

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

unimportant brand, presumably promotional article. The references are not in sufficient depth to justify an article. DGG ( talk ) 08:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 08:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is very important brand in India. According to this Economic Times report, it was number 2 in market share in India in January-June 2016. --Dwaipayan (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a brand I remember well in Canada -- and may have even used. Gbooks results are mixed, the article could definitely be expanded with such book cites as this one, again conveying the brand's leading role in the massive Indian market, especially as the breakthrough gel toothpaste line. And then New York Magazine writes that the "gelling of America" began with Close Up (albeit "ever so humbly"). I do think we may a notable brand, especially insofar as the gel innovation. keep (or failing that, merge with Unilever). Between introducing the gel concept in North America in its first iteration and now its dominance in India, I do think there's enough notability, if that could all be combined in an expanded article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's going strong in India and Canada and who knows where else, so it's a worldwide brand and has been around for nearly 50 years. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I guess? Since Wiki has an article on Crest (toothpaste), I don't see why India's dominant brand should not have an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Dwaipayanc, Clarityfiend and K.e.coffman; notable enough by a squeeze. Kierzek (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 05:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Presenter ali

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

It's quite clear this is being started and maintained as a clear advertisement, and the fact there's no actual substance emphasizes, the sheer fact that there's then nothing but only bare URLs or his own bare websites listed is another; there's absolutely nothing here to convince us an acceptable article, and therefore policy WP:NOT applies. SwisterTwister talk 07:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable media personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence whatsoever of notability. The only citations which include any relevant facts at all are self-published. All other citations are to third-party home pages. Narky Blert (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Autobio - NN - references and 1/2 the piece refer to the employer, not the article's subject. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vinay Maheshwari

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

Insufficient evidence of notability. This article includes a lot of info/sources to confirm the notability of Dainik Bhaskar, but that does not mean that Vinay Maheshwari is notable just because he works there. The only claim to notability in this article is being named Print Media professional of the year 2016; however, the Asia Pacific Customer Engagement Awards don't appear to be particularly significant/notable. IagoQnsi (talk) 07:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Autobio - NN - references and 1/2 the piece refer to the employer, not the article's subject. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Deasy

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

Amateur footballer, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, probable vanity article. WP:PROD removed by article creator. Jellyman (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 07:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY as he hasn't managed in a fully professional league. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, and can I add that the infobox photo captioned "Michael trying on a suit in River Island, September 2016" is one of the most amusing things I've seen on WP in a while? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The photo might be the best argument for keeping it. ;) Jellyman (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete added this source. But might just not meet GNG. When relialable sources will be added will change my opinion. MFriedman (talk) 09:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability.Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 11:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as subject has not played in a fully-professional league or in a Tier-1 international match. Fails WP:GNG; Google search turns up the guitarist Mike Deasy, the strength and conditioning coach for the Samoa national rugby union team, and numerous other individuals with the same name, but not this particular Michael Deasy. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 12:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC) That is a snazzy photo. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 14:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, love the photo. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 12:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as everyone else before, fails any sort of notability guideline. Adamtt9 (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If notability is an issue, can we at least just put the page into a dormant stage, as eventually Michael Deasy will be managing in a Professional League and need a WP page anyway Deasy (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:CRYSTAL - you have no way of guaranteeing that at this point in time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; argument to keep based purely on needing to have a crystal ball Spiderone 19:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. Maybe we should archive the picture though. He may have a future career as male model and become notable that way Djln Djln (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canine penis

This seems like an overly specialized article whose material largely overlaps with Canine anatomy and Canine reproduction. See WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Recommendation is that this page is deleted and the relevant materials merged into those two articles. Jtrevor99 (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the content seems in line with encyclopedic material and wikipedia in particular. I have gone over the sources and they are either scholarly, academic or relavant. The problem with merging content is that merged content typically ends up being redundant at the merged article and may end up being deleted. Therefore I feel a vote to merge would be the equivalent of a delete and I see no reason whatsoever to delete this since the intricacies of the canine penis seems distinguished and specific enough to warrant its own article. Furthermore, a google search indicates that it is not a non-notable topic with tends of thousands of articles covering it. Negingxiilch78 (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fair. I'll relist the article once to see if anyone else wishes to comment, but if not, we can leave as-is. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chakradhari (1954 film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM, as tagged by Wgolf in April 2016. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 05:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here is discussion of this film in a book. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems valid, as above Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With no prejudice towards recreation as a properly sourced article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gender marketing

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

Unreferenced non-neutral opinion piece that cannot readily be fixed. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blow it up and start over. The topic is notable,[29][30][31] but this is just a how-to guide for marketers. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Robert & Clarityfiend, as it stands now, it's a rather classic example of WP:TNT. Delete Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. A real, neutral and properly referenced article could almost certainly be written about this topic — but that's not what this article is. (For just one example of the many problems here, properly written Wikipedia articles do not address the reader as "you".) Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Imbruglia: The Collection

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

I have just closed the RFD at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_7#Natalie_Imbruglia:_The_Collection due to consensus that this needs to be reverted and discussed at an AfD and not and RfD. As I pointed out, this is almost certainly the second or third oldest hoax discovered in the history of the encyclopedia as it was created almost 10 years ago. There are absolutely no sources to confirm the existence of such an album. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the editors who participated in the aforementioned discussion:@Rubbish computer, SMcCandlish, Thryduulf, and EurekaLott:. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable if this real at all. Googling about for info on this alleged bootleg, I'm not finding anything that doesn't resolve back to Wikipedia. That said, I have all sorts of bootlegs (granted, from an earlier period, and more obscure acts) that don't turn up in G hits, either. If the album is real, and editors at Natalie Imbruglia consider it encyclopedically relevant, mention of it can be integrated into the discography section of the main article. Even that would be pretty unusual; WP doesn't usually cover bootlegs unless there's something remarkable about them. PS: I would bet good money that what this really is about is a long-dead torrent, not a physical bootleg of any kind. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 05:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as either a hoax or a non-notable bootleg. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concur, this is most likely a long-gone non-notable bootleg. No sign of anything on a web search. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as far as I can see, absolutely no evidence this exists. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as either a hoax or non notable. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 10:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I kind of dislike the idea that this was originally turned into a redirect rather than being directly nominated for deletion, because of the fact that this hoax has remained on here for so long, I just happened to be nominating problematic redirects that I　could find the other day and found this without realizing that this had previously been an article, when Thryduulf told me that, I decided this was certainly not notable but subsequently realized how old this was and this could rank among the oldest WP hoaxes discovered to date. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 20:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hey Everybody. I just spotted this. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable; appears to be a hoax. -- Dane ^talk 01:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mineral Products Association. ...is realistically WP:A7 otherwise. slakr^\ talk / 03:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Concrete Centre

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

No independent notability from the parent association. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mineral Products Association. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note This was originally an article about the journal which has been published quarterly since 1947. Someone else moved it to the parent organisation. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nabla (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis the Season (Vince Gill and Olivia Newton-John album)

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

Non-notable album, no sourcing found. Unlikely to be sourced due to the album being released only at Hallmark. No likely redirect target due to it being a collaborative album. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither generally notable nor notable as an album. The Hallmark-only distribution almost guarantees it wouldn't be able to reach of the latter exceptions, and the performers don't grant notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josipa Kusić

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

Delete: as utterly non-notable beauty pageant winner. Quis separabit? 04:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourcing just to Miss World's own website is not sufficient to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the picture is nice, but the rest is A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not finding enough to prove notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lenty Frans

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

Delete: Non-notable beauty pageant winner; references to future events. Quis separabit? 03:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: National titleholder, competing in largest pageant in the world. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 04:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total lack of sources to establish notability. We have no guidelines that say that any beauty contest winners are notable without pasing GNG, and there is no evidence provided that she passes the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Frans will be] "competing in largest pageant in the world." -- future and speculative; if she wins we can restore the article. Quis separabit? 02:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a country level win could result in enough coverage to meet GNG. But no sources to this effect have been presented in the article or at the AfD, so delete until such time that this coverage manifest itself. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is not enough currently to prove notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Tiff

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

Non-notable high school athlete who will be a college runner who fails WP:NSPORT. KATMAKROFAN tagged it with BLP PROD, and then the creator added a reliable source to a local newspaper along with publications from the university he will be attending confirming he signed. I removed the BLPPROD since a RS was placed, but think it fails notability requirements. It also looks to be autobiographical and probably created for promotional purposes, but not clear cut enough to be G11 in my mind. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails general notability for now. Blackguard 05:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above Fails notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails everything, clear-cut vanity page. Rockypedia (talk) 06:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable high school athlete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Gas (band)

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

No sources come up when doing a Google search. No sources currently in the article aside from AllMusic which is not a reliable source. Andise1 (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails general notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. --Cerebellum (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cerebellum (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beanie kids

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

This should be G4-speedied, but I can't find the previous discussion. Beanie Kids (with a capital "K") has been salted, but has since been recreated with a lowercase "k". Blackguard 03:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there was discussion before, it was speedily deleted 3 times per G11. I think another Speedy Delete is appropriate. For the record: They are still not notable since the last deletion. It is a toy line but they fail WP:GNG. There is about 0 coverage on these toys anywhere, the only mentions of them is on market places and related places. It can therefore be deleted again. Dead Mary (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after looking at Google Australia, nothing comes up https://www.google.com.au/#q=beanie+kids&tbm=nws Ferrari250 (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not really familiar with all of the guidelines etc... But the reason I wanted to create the page is -because- very little can be found about these toys through a search. They are collectables, collected by a number of Australians and sold by collectable dealers online and in stores around the country. Also will admit that I considered this page to be a work in progress - wasn't aware anyone else could see it yet! Would be happy to have any guidance to assist in making it meet the guidelines?? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephjwa (talk • contribs) 23:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Everett Ford

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

Does not meet the Notability for Military Persons guidelines at WP:SOLDIER. CSD was refused by someone who may not be familiar with these guidelines. The award of a Silver Star does not qualify under the specified criteria. I have made an extensive search for any secondary sources about the subject of this article and I have been unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Article should therefore be deleted - frankly, WP:SNOW should apply. Exemplo347 (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I declined the speedy realising that WP:SOLDIER was not fulfilled; in my reading, at least, the "claim" necessary to survive A7 can be substantially lower than subject-specific notability guidelines. For people whose career pre-dates the internet, a Google search for references can never be conclusive. I and Brianhe have both notified the new editor that more work is needed to demonstrate the subject's notability, and I additionally offered to move the article to draftspace for development, which might be a good outcome. It might have been polite to have given Jogreg74 a day or two to respond. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has only one source, his Silver Star commendation, which is a primary source. My search for reliable, independent secondary sources came up with nothing. After reading this article, we know nothing about this man other than how admirably he conducted himself on two days of his life. We do not know when or where he was born or even whether or not he is still alive. Accordingly, this is not an acceptable or useful biography for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Silver Star is nowhere close to satisfying the SOLDIER guidelines, and there's nothing else. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Their Own Words

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

Did a Google search and could not find many reliable sources which discuss this documentary. Andise1 (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced article and non-notable topic. Fails WP:V and WP:N. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 06:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Boyd (Football Player)

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

College athlete who appears to have played one year of college football in 2011 and got a small bit of media coverage from ESPN when he transferred, but this appears to be more about it being the first to leave under the coach than anything about him personally. Fails WP:NCOLLATH and I couldn't find any other sources that would put him past WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As above, fails general notability for now. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't have time to study the articles tonight, but there does seem to be some significant coverage of the guy in major media outlets: (1) ESPN, (2) ESPN again, (3) Chicago Tribune, (4) NBC Sports, (5) Tampa Bay Times. Cbl62 (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To me, this is WP:BLP1E. Most of the coverage surrounds him transferring to ND, and I don't think sports coverage of a college athlete transferring schools confers notability on him. The Chicago Tribune article was a sports blog which focuses specifically on Notre Dame football, so announcing that the #26 cornerback recruit signed with them to me is pretty WP:ROUTINE coverage. If the only two things a college athlete gets substantial coverage for are signing with a team and transferring off of that team, I don't think that meets the standards of our policies. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

response "one event" requires it to be "one event" and this is clearly at least two events: when he came to Notre Dame, and when he left Notre Dame. Arguments could be made for even more. While the article as written looks really lame, that's an editing issue and not a deletion issue. I can find no policy violation and it seems to me that the subject passes WP:GNG. Therefore, here we are at Keep--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks the level of coverage to establish notability as a football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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