The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Slight WP:IAR and closing this two days early due to zero opposition, plus disruption on the article itself by the creator (despite being blocked once for it). Primefac ( talk) 16:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Shaun Jose Rodrigues

Shaun Jose Rodrigues (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Biographical article which does not demonstrate notability of the subject. Extensive research online does not reveal any evidence that the subject meets the notability requirements for academics, nor meets the general notability criteria. Current references are a second author credit on one scientific paper and an abstract for a conference. There's also no evidence their work is itself notable which could indicate the possibility of the subject also being notable, or an alternative avenue for the author to pursue. The original drafts were deleted for their promotional content, the version nominated was sufficiently pared down to not be speedily deletable. Nick ( talk) 22:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: I don't think that the argument that it has not been given time to improve is valid here. If we made a Wikipedia page about Bill Gates that just said "Bill Gates is a businessman", it wouldn't get deleted. Why? Because he passes WP:GNG and someone would find a source, etc., etc. I don't think this person passes WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. I may be wrong, and it may be a good idea to move to draft if someone can find some references that are independent and reliable to support the General Notability Guidelines. Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 22:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Zero impact on GS. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC). reply
• Delete Complete non-notable. A couple of technical papers published and an award from his undergraduate school. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 12:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Another lengthy, OR-filled, SPA-created article on an individual who does not pass standard WP:N guidelines. Agricola44 ( talk) 13:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) f e minist 03:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Wells Fargo account fraud scandal

Wells Fargo account fraud scandal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

POV fork article. The scandal is well covered in the main Wells Fargo article and this article will lead to a bunch of edit warring between affected customers and satisfied customers. ANDROS¹³³⁷ _TALK 22:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete, or perhaps Merge. There should not be two separate coverages of this; it belongs on the Wells Fargo page. The only problem there is there are so damned many things like it. Anmccaff ( talk) 22:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep frankly flabbergasted by nomination given how much coverage the event has received. The coverage on the Wells Fargo article is grossly inadequate.-- MainlyTwelve ( talk) 23:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Then let's move it there, no? This is at best a POV fork waiting to happen, and at worst one which has already happened. No dispute about the seriousness or importance, but unless this article grows dramatically, it all belongs on the main page. Anmccaff ( talk) 23:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Ir's a fairly new article, and by no means does "scandal" indicate a difference of POV. I've also not asserted any sort of owership over it...no reverts, no nothing. I can only again reassert my shock at this nomination and assert that "this article will lead to a bunch of edit warring between affected customers and satisfied customers" is at best a nonsensical support of merge/delete.-- MainlyTwelve ( talk) 00:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply

I think you are answering accusations no one has made. Is the take on this exactly the same as in the main article? No? Then there is a POV fork. Is it the same? Then why do we have two articles?

No, you haven't reverted anyone; how could you, no one else has edited it. I think that should be setting off alarm bells.

I'm not sure "scandal" is the best word, because you can a scandal wit nothing behind it, but I didn't raise any question about that, nor did anyone else.

Finally, I'm not sure it's the customers edits we gotta worry about. Anmccaff ( talk) 00:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 23:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 23:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 23:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Customers being grifted by their own bank is definitely not a "POV issue", and any time a rationale contains a "edit wars will ensue if we keep this" line (especially when there hasn't been any other editors yet) I pretty much discount the nom right away; nobody is going to deny this happened, even WelzFargoFanboyStagecoachDRVR1852. Give our contributors more credit for being neutral, please. Nate • ( chatter) 01:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Ummm, no one is saying that Customers being grifted by their own bank is ... a "POV issue". What two of us are saying is that the coverage of this should not be a separate article from the main Wells Fargo one, until and unless it grows to a point of being unmanageable, or ages to the point that a smaller mention is justified in the WF article. Right now, it's big enough and new enough it should be front and center, and unified.

No one said "edit wars will ensue if we keep this", or any line like that; if you want to argue that, go and find someone making the argument.

The fact that there have been no other editors, and only a minimal number of readers so far is exactly the problem being raised. It's a cul-de-sac, not a part of the mainstream. Now, I could see the point that i hasn't had enough time to catch on, but...no, I can't actually. This was, and is, a damned big story. The fact that no one looking at it definitely says something. Anmccaff ( talk) 01:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply

ANDROS explicitly wrote "this article will lead to a bunch of edit warring between affected customers and satisfied customers".-- MainlyTwelve ( talk) 22:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply

My apologies. I seem to have been skimming only for your literal words. I agree with you that edit wars, in and of themselves, are no reason to delete something. I disagree that this needs -two- articles. This should all be in the main Wells Fargo article for now. Anmccaff ( talk) 23:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep This is a broad and continuing incident that is thoroughly covered in reliable and verifiable sources and meets the notability standard separate and aprt from the article for the bank. Alansohn ( talk) 02:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - This is a notable incident that meets WP:GNG. It is a well-written and well-referenced article that deals with the subject more fully than is suitable for the main Wells Fargo article. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:GNG, the many sources and editor comments above Seraphim System ^{( talk)} 22:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Clearly notable per WP:GNG and adequately sourced - to merge would unbalance the existing Wells Fargo page. - Arjayay ( talk) 16:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

How? This is still a current issue for WF an its Victimscustomers, and should be a major part of the article. Anmccaff ( talk) 16:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep. Obviously meets GNG per article's sourcing and a basic news search. To be clear, nothing about the existence of this article prevents the topic from being appropriately discussed in Wells Fargo, per SUMMARYSTYLE. James ( ^talk/ _contribs) 03:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clearly, there is a consensus to delete here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Walter van Dyk

Walter van Dyk (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD: original premis was 'This obvious autobiography or paid-editing PR piece has been tagged as (almost) unreferenced for seven years now, and there comes a point when one has to assume the references won't be forthcoming. A few hits on Google, but I can't see any independent coverage other than the three references already in this article—the rest are all either theatrical listings, imdb and imdb-type "list everyone who appeared" databases for obvious bit-part roles like "Gay Biker Man at Funeral", and mirrors of the Wikipedia article.' Reason for PROD removal was 'has references'; unfortunately this did not make clear why having references conveys notability. Or even significance, for that matter. So, here we are. A WP:BEFORE demonstrates few if any reliable sources discussing him in roles or any impact made in them. So fails WP:NACTOR. On top of this, the few sources that even mention him do so in passing, with little depth or the persistence in coverage from reliable sources that one might expect from the *broad* claims made in the article. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Yeah, he was in a helluva load of famous plays; but per WP:NOTINHERITED, that seems to be the extent of involvement in fame or anything close to it. And that's not counting the WP:PROMO, WP:UPE, or WP:COI that's probably involved here. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 21:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete What's here doesn't justify an article, and seven years is a long time to wait for something that would. Anmccaff ( talk) 22:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete--I did not realize that there were so few reliable hits for this person: delete this resume. Drmies ( talk) 03:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I found passing mentions like this but nothing that would be possible to create a reasonable and properly sourced article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fails all aspects of WP:NACTOR, fails WP:ANYBIO, fails WP:CREATIVE (for photography). Some of the credits seem to be not quite correct, for instance IMDb lists "Septimus" as "Patrician #3", etc. (Btw, Ref#3 is from an edition of Screen World and consist of a listing for the movie's cast/crew, it is not in-depth coverage or an actual article or interview.) Article also asserts notability for being a singer but subject fails WP:MUSICBIO, only mention of van Dyk at the Portland Chamber Music site is as the narrator in the (one-week+ residency performance's) 2007 & 2008 ensembles. Not all stage performances are notable enough to prove notability for Wikipedia's purposes and appearances as minor figures in theatrical films also do not convey notability. Shearonink ( talk) 15:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Note For the benefit of those who might not see it—and to preserve it in case the talkpage is deleted—copy-pasting this comment from the article talk page (some slight fixes by me to the formatting for display purposes but no wording change):

• Firstly, I am the son of Dutch composer Rudi Martinus van Dijk (see Wikipedia) which for historical reasons is of interest. Secondly, I have been a British actor for the past 35 years and I am well known to the profession which is significantly different to being a celebrity. It is of interest to people in the Arts. If there is something specifically which is felt unnecessary and needs editing then by all means let me know. I myself do not know how references are sourced and created in Wikipedia but if you tell me how I can look into this.

  Best wishes,

  Walter van Dyk -- 82.12.222.139 ( talk) 16:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

   ‑  Iridescent 16:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per my comments when I originally proposed it for deletion. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I consider DGG's notion that "has references" is grounds for keeping an article regardless of whether it's compliant with Wikipedia's inclusion standards to be utterly spurious. ‑  Iridescent 16:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete, as per the various comments above. Hchc2009 ( talk) 17:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi hit the nail on the head. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep-- The article has been updated with relevant citations and the references needed. -- Walter van Dijk 17:49 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• Page is terrible. But the actor may be sourceable, and, if so, page can be reduced to what can be sourced. His recent roles can be sourced [3]. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• So I ran an news archive search. Found: Arts Planner, Keyes, Bob. Portland Press Herald; Portland, Me. [Portland, Me]03 Aug 2008: E.1. "Among the highlights of this year's festival is the return of Walter van Dyk, the British stage actor who made a big impact last season when he narrated Stravinsky's "The Soldier's Tale." [4]; "it was a nice idea to put these works together, particularly in the form conceived by the Dante Quartet and the actor Walter van Dyk," Classical: The Independent; London (UK) [London (UK)]26 Dec 2007: 14. [5]; "The Narrator (Walter van Dyk) kept things on the boil" Stravinsky on the march CLASSICAL, Norris, GeoffreyAuthor InformationView Profile. The Daily Telegraph; London (UK) [London (UK)]07 July 2005: 026. [6]; "Only in the third act did things take off, and that was because three performers with impeccable comic timing were given their head - Dolton, Walter Van Dyk as a randy old prisoner, and the protean Simon Butteriss." La Perichole Garsington Opera at Wormsley ** Church, Michael. The Independent; London (UK) [London (UK)]26 June 2012: 44. [7] and more. I didn't scan them all. @ Walter van Dijk: If profiles of or interviews with Van Dyk have been published (not by the a theatre or event sponsor, in the news media) you could add those to this discussion. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• I have reinstated his photograph to improve the look of the page. -- Walter van Dijk 15:08 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment It is now three times that the subject of this article has voted to keep it, if you include the note copied from the talk page.-- Pawnkingthree ( talk) 19:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  06:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply

RACAJ monument

RACAJ monument (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Don't see any real sources for this. Source given is just google maps, but looking just showed light weight references. Very new, perhaps too new. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete looks like a hoax. A Clio award? A Golden Lion at Cannes? I don't think so. Mduvekot ( talk) 22:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Fwiw, there's a different kind of Golden Lion at a different Cannes festival: https://www.canneslions.com/#/ Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Hunt Channel

Hunt Channel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Single line article about a non notable TV channel. Previous prod deleted following addition of some references which do not equate to notability. Fails WP:GNG   Velella   ^{Velella Talk}   20:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- A7 material while also managing to be spammy. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails GNG. South Nashua ( talk) 17:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  06:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Theory of hyper-random phenomena

Theory of hyper-random phenomena (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Published papers concerning this new theory are essentially all the work of a single author, apparently also the author of this article, with almost no recognition elsewhere. WP:TOOSOON comes to mind. Lithopsian ( talk) 20:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Looking at the Google scholar profile for Gorban/Горбань, his work is mostly on the theory and he has published a lot. He cites himself quite a bit, but he's been working on the theory for over a decade and other scholars cite his papers as well. I'm not sure how to judge his work, perhaps it falls under WP:FRINGE? Even so, given there doesn't seem to be coverage of the theory outside of a small network of scholars. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 22:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment - This year it will be published in Springer a new monograph concerning the theory of hyper-random phenomena: Gorban, I.I.: Randomness and Hyper-randomness. Springer (2017) [8]. Publication Date: October 5, 2017. 93.74.159.69 ( talk) 06:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment The monograph devoted to the theory of hyper-random phenomena - Gorban, I.I. The phenomenon of statistical stability. Springer (2017) is interesting for a fairly wide audience of readers [9]. 194.44.11.50 ( talk) 11:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete as WP:NOR. Also by WP:TNT, the article is unreadable in its current form. Power~enwiki ( talk) 08:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh ( talk) 17:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Salil Sand

Salil Sand (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

The citations are either brief quotations, brief mentions, self-published, or press releases. No independent coverage, and a search turned up nothing better. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO Narky Blert ( talk) 20:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 23:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 23:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete this PROMO for lack of WP:SIGCOV. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Backpacker (US slang)

Backpacker (US slang) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

The page as written belongs in Urban Dictionary, I don't see any evidence either term on the page is in popular use as slang in the United States. Power~enwiki ( talk) 20:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Term is unencyclopedic and cannot be confirmed in reliable sources. Meatsgains ( talk) 21:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Not a dictionary. Sure as hell not Urban Dictionary. Anmccaff ( talk) 22:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 on salting, but further recreation without a deletion review or addressing the issues will call for locking. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Ian Anderson (soccer)

Ian Anderson (soccer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined on the grounds that the article is substantially different than the one that was deleted two years ago. However, the underlying notability concerns remain. He has still not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 19:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 19:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. No need to salt yet as the time between AfDs is two years. Fenix down ( talk) 08:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete and salt per WP:NFOOTY failure. Being created and edited by two brand new accounts doesn't look dodgy at all! Number 5 7 08:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) f e minist 15:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Redwall (TV series)

Redwall (TV series) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Series does not appear to meet WP:NTV— this article consists almost exclusively of an extended plot summary, and provides no evidence that the series has been the subject of any independent reliable verifiable secondary publications. A Google search provides ample evidence that the subject exists... but Existence ≠ Notability. KDS4444 ( talk) 19:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Textbook WP:SOFIXIT case. It aired on three national networks and was based on a popular book series you obvious didn't do one bit of WP:BEFORE on. There's no chance at all we're deleting this. Nate • ( chatter) 01:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - not seeing any valid reason for deletion. Artw ( talk) 02:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)″ reply
• Keep. Deletion not being cleanup, the fact of the plot summary is neither here nor there. Mrschimpf's rationale for the rest covers what I'd want to say. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. — FilmandTVFan28 ( talk) 04:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Mrschimpf. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep (Nomination withdrawn). (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Redwall

Redwall (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Book series does not appear to meet WP:NBOOK. Reviews in Figment and Publisher's Weekly are not selective and include no editorial oversight. Many are simply fan reviews. Book series has won no literary awards, nor does it appear to have been the subject of substantive discussion in multiple reliable secondary sources. A Google search turns up the official website, then this article, then Goodreads, Barnes & Noble, and Amazon reviews, all of which are churned out by readers and are not measures of notability. KDS4444 ( talk) 19:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^{( T/ C)} 19:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Let's go through NBOOKS. Point 1: Several books in the series have been on the New York Times' best seller list. ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]} Indeed, the presence of popular children's books like Redwall and Harry Potter is one of the things that pushed the New York Times to spin off the children's best sellers from the adult best sellers in 2000. ^[5] For some additional non-trivial published mentions, see the author's obituary in the New York Times, An article from Audubon about the importance of antropomorphic animals in children's literature leading to a love of animals in adults, This and this article in the Guardian listing the best books for children and teenagers, and given time I can find more. Point 2: Four of the books in the series were nominated for Carnegie medals. ^[6] They have also won other awards, such as Lancashire Book of the Year (3 times), and Western Australian Young Readers' Award 4 times. ^[7] Point 3: The books have been adapted into other art forms such as a t.v. series (see sources cited in that article), and a graphic novel. ^[8] Point 4: Here are some books designed for primary school teachers teaching Redwall. ^{[9] [10] [11]} I think it clearly meets WP:NBOOKS and the WP:GNG. ~ ONUnicorn^{( Talk| Contribs)} problem solving 21:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep per ONUnicorn. A bit surprising this is a discussion even being had, given the awards etc that the series has won. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Obvious WP:BEFORE fail is obvious. KDS4444, withdrawing the nomination would be perfectly reasonable. Jclemens ( talk) 02:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply

 I withdraw my nomination , somewhat reluctantly KDS4444 ( talk) 06:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Back Stabber (2016 TV series)

Back Stabber (2016 TV series) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This is bordering on a hoax with the poor attempt to manufacture notability by spamming press releases all over the internet. All of the sources in this article and others that I've come across in my search are more or less user generated from what appears to be the subjects marketing team. I can find nothing reliable to support any claims in this article other than it's existence on Amazon. (Prod had expired but another user declined before deletion.) Appears to be similar to the attempt made at Ryan Zamo to fluff up the sources. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment I agree the article is in a poor state, but I just added an independent reference [10]. I"ll see if I can find more.-- Pawnkingthree ( talk) 18:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • comment It's not just that it's in a bad state, it's a pretty bold attempt at marketing and not even a good one at that. As far as that source goes, that's more or less an interview, so not really useful in the context of establishing notability. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Notability is established by significant coverage in third party sources - this is an example. The fact that the creator of the show has been interviewed for the story should not count against it.-- Pawnkingthree ( talk) 18:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

I realize that and it doesn't count against it however it doesn't satisfy the "independent reliable coverage" portion as it's coverage of what someone directly involved with the subject is saying...about the subject. So pretty much the definition of not independent. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

It's the source itself, the publication, that needs to be independent! I'm fairly sure Ryan Zamo does not work for northjersey.com.-- Pawnkingthree ( talk) 19:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Pawnkingthree The publisher is independent, perhaps however an interview is them talking about themselves/their business ventures. So the content and the source itself is not independent. It's the same idea behind why a press release on Reuters or another independent source isn't considered independent reliable source in terms of coverage...if there is no actual coverage aside from one interview from a local source, that doesn't bode well for the coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Hmm. More is needed anyway. The Huffington Post (not exactly a gold standard as a RS, I know) has this, although the headline and the fact that the writer falls for the ridiculous "considered for multiple Golden Globe Awards" hype isn't a good sign. I'm beginning to think it's going to be difficult to salvage this article once all the puffery is stripped out.-- Pawnkingthree ( talk) 19:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Pawnkingthree I appreciate your attempt to salvage it but even that HP article is...well, it's pretty telling that all the things that article cites are the same as what is in this article (and it appears to be more of a blog entry rather than HP's actual content.) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: I'm not sure I'd call it a hoax, but it's painfully clear that almost every single source is either an interview (not an RS), a press release (not an RS), or some kind of social media site (slashdot is user-submitted content, also not an RS). It is also plain that there has been a concerted and focused attempt to fluff the marketing, which means we must be especially careful in scrutinizing every source that is presented with regard to this article. We should also be especially careful to not encourage this sort of behavior by allowing this to spiral out of hand. Let's just delete this and get it over with. Waggie ( talk) 19:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete as this article is sourced using press releases and interviews. Obvious attempts at WP:PROMO. -- Dane ^talk 19:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete this is an amateur production self-published on Amazon, and has not achieved the necessary notability for that type of work. Power~enwiki ( talk) 20:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete I did my best to come up with sufficient reliable sources, but no luck. If it ever achieves enough recognition for proper reviews by critics or other similar coverage then it can be re-created at a later date.-- Pawnkingthree ( talk) 20:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Part Hoax, part not notable. Grandiose claims that are not true which are only sourced to press releases with fake claims. On the HuffPo article note the disclaimer on the page, "This post is hosted on the Huffington Post's Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and post freely to our site." Not a Reliable Source. Note also the author has had seven articles on this platform. They include that puff piece about Ryan Zamo's show, A puff piece about Ryan Zamo's appearance on Project Runway: Fashion Startup, another puff piece about Ryan Zamo's appearance on Project Runway: Fashion Startup and a now removed piece on Ryan Zamo's skincare company. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Anything that tries this hard to manufacture notability is definitely either WP:HOAX or WP:A11. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 18:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete: per Waggie and Nicnote. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn ( non-admin closure) Lepricavark ( talk) 18:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Make in Odisha

Make in Odisha (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Can't find any secondary sources to establish notability. TheMagikCow ( T) ( C) 18:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC) Withdrawn: per WP:SK1, found sources, [11], [12] and [13]. TheMagikCow ( T) ( C) 18:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Alcove

Alcove (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:DICDEF. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( My aftermath) 18:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( My aftermath) 18:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Not a dictionary. Anmccaff ( talk) 23:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Dictionary definition. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 08:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( My aftermath) 21:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Universal Wrestling Federation (Herb Abrams). (non-admin closure) f e minist 15:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply

UWF World Heavyweight Championship / SportsChannel America Television Championship

UWF World Heavyweight Championship / SportsChannel America Television Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable wrestling Championship — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.188.140 ( talk) 17:53, 11 May 2017‎ (UTC) reply

Created from Prod rationale as a Prod has previously been declined on the this article. ~ GB fan 18:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥ 311 19:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 23:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 23:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete and redirect to Universal Wrestling Federation (Herb Abrams) where it is already listed because all UWF championships were folded into that page a while ago.  MPJ -DK  11:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect - this page and all of the championships listed at Universal Wrestling Federation (Herb Abrams) championships should be merged back into the main page ( Universal Wrestling Federation (Herb Abrams)). Nikki♥ 311 21:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect Listed on the main page. LM2000 ( talk) 07:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Non-notable belt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.190.4 ( 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 delete. As editors have said, demonstrating notability requires multiple sources. Arguments about WP:ENT are hollow as the person still must meet WP:GNG, and all claims must be verifiable. The consensus here is that this is not the case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Sidemen (YouTube group)

Sidemen (YouTube group) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BEFORE shows not enough reliable sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. Waggie ( talk) 17:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 18:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep - the AfD was nominated after the account representing the group had removed without reason the best reference that the article had, which is the coverage in The Guardian - which is reliable, independent and provided reasonably significant coverage noting the surprise success of the group's book, which became a best-seller. I have now reinstated that reference. I also believe the subject qualifies under WP:ENT on the basis of having a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. The fanbase is certainly large (per secondary reference in the The Guardian coverage) and is certainly cult - I neither like football nor video games but clearly there is a huge following by young people who use YouTube as a primary means of entertainment and for whom their favourite content contributors have superstar status. The group is also a football team that draws huge crowds to their charity matches but that doesn't fit neatly into the notability of sports teams. Like the concurrent discussion on the AfD for the Chris Dixon article, the problem is that the Sidemen article will attract IP editors who will want to add trivia and unsourced material, so some level of page protection will prove necessary in due course if the article is kept. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 21:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

WP:GNG calls for 3-5 independent and reliable sources to establish notability. ONE good reference just isn't sufficient. I'm not sure where a "cult" following comes into this, and a large fan base cannot be established by number of followers on YouTube, as followers can easily be purchased en masse. Waggie ( talk) 16:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Where does GNG say anything about 3-5 references? The bit about cult following comes from WP:ENT, which states that notability of entertainers can be established in any one of three ways, the second way being "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." How would that be established? It is a subjective measure, and in that regard the number of YouTube subscribers provides a useful indicator. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 18:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply

As noted in the Chris Dixon (Youtuber) AfD, it says "multiple sources". "Multiple" means "having or involving several parts, elements, or members", and "several" means "more than two but not many." (emphasis added). Hence the range 3-5 that I describe. Also as noted in the other AfD, WP:AUD states "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." As noted above regarding WP:ENT and a "cult following", the number of Youtube subscribers is NOT an accurate measure because they can be easily purchased en masse in order to artificially inflate one's following (a problem with treating ANY social media subscriber base as a measure of importance) and besides that Youtube is clearly not a reliable source in any case except for in VERY specific circumstances which is established in WP:RS. Waggie ( talk) 00:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per Waggie not nearly enough to establish WP:GNG, a quick Google News search showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Improve I'm not sure what they are or do from the article. If it's mainly a one-off group constructed for a charity event, it should be deleted. Power~enwiki ( talk) 19:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC) reply

"The Sidemen YouTube channel was set up especially for the match, going from zero subscribers to one million subscribers in just three days, making it the fastest YouTube channel in the world, ever to reach one million subscribers." [14] The video of that match has now had 13m views. The team is playing again in a week, and if the article is still around by then, it will be interesting to see if a 27,000 spectator match helps the discussion! Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 21:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Based on that, my inclination is to delete; the charitable event may be notable but I don't see the individual team (or their Youtube channel) as being notable. As a practical note, it may be worth waiting until after May 21 to close this AfD. Power~enwiki ( talk) 02:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Clearly not notable. It's WP:POPULAR is not a reason to keep. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC) reply

If a celebrity has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, they're notable, per WP:ENT. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 21:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC) reply

I meant WP:ITSPOPULAR. A large number of views/subscribers by itself is not notable, it has to be mentioned by reliable, independent third-party sources. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Waggie and other reasons above. There isn't a significant amount of news/secondary sources on them to show their notability. Despite having a large fan base, other than a book and a football match, I'm not sure the group has done many notable things outside of comedy YouTube videos. Sekyaw (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia doesn't require notables to have done "many notable things". How does this group not meet the second basis of notability in WP:ENT? That is the only test that we need to apply here, surely? If they have "a large or cult following" then they're notable. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 14:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Saying that the group has a "large or cult following" is WP:OR. There are thousands of YouTube channels that have over one million subscribers and basing it off of that number should not immediately indicate a cult following, thus any notability whatsoever. Sekyaw (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

No WP:OR is required, the claim of a 'large or cult following' is supported by the reliable, published sources cited in the article. Let's take a closer look:

The Guardian:

• book sells 26,436 copies in the first three days

Charlton Athletic FC:

• Sell-out football match in 2016 (15,000 tickers sold)
• 13 million people have watched the game on YouTube
• Fastest-growing YouTube channel ever, reaching a million subscribers in three days

Daily Echo - (I recognise this is a local paper):

• 600,000 people watched the event live on YouTube - a record.

This time next week it will be possible to expand the article due to the football match they are playing in this Sunday which has sold out (27,000 tickets) and this shows that there is an enduring following, rather than this being about one event.

Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 09:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Based on the discussion, it seems like there aren't enough dedicated sources to satisfy GNG. Numbers of viewers aren't substitutes, alas. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Chris Dixon (YouTuber)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

Chris Dixon (YouTuber) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BEFORE shows not enough reliable sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. Waggie ( talk) 17:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 18:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep - this hinges around the Jersey Evening Post article as the basis for verifying notability. The Jersey Evening Post is the "national" newspaper for Jersey and is a reliable, independent secondary source, and its article provided significant coverage. Note that the web content linked to in that reference is only a precis of the much more extensive coverage that appeared in the print version of the newspaper - from memory it was a full tabloid page, so we must consider the offline source, not the quality of the coverage accessible by the web link. The subject also qualifies under WP:ENT on the basis of a large fan base or a significant "cult" following (3,143,376 YouTube subscribers). The problem with this Wikipedia article is that it is a honeypot for young fans who want to add non-encyclopedic content / trivia, and in the last couple of weeks someone close to the subject has become an editor and added original research. The article needs stripping back, and realistically would need some level of page protection to prevent further additions of unsuitable content. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 21:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Same argument as on Sidemen.. One reliable source does not pass WP:GNG. A minimum of 3-5 reliable sources, with independent and comprehensive coverage is required to pass WP:GNG. A large fan base cannot be determined by followers, as followers can be purchased. YouTube is not a reliable source. Waggie ( talk) 16:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply

WP:GNG says "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." Where does the "minimum 3-5" come from? Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 17:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply

You quote precisely the section I refer to. It says "multiple sources". "Multiple" means "having or involving several parts, elements, or members", and "several" means "more than two but not many." (emphasis added). Hence the range 3-5 that I describe. Also you called the Jersey Evening Post a "local" paper, which it definitely is, even if it reports or syndicates national news. WP:AUD states "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." I'll admit that WP:AUD is part of WP:ORG. This would seem to be born out in specific to Youtubers by past AfD discussions, such as this AfD, this AfD, and this AfD as some quickly found examples. Waggie ( talk) 00:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete- Fails WP:BLP policy, WP:GNG and WP:PEOPLE subject specific guidelines. Any article containing material about a living person must comply with the policy of biographies of living individuals. This includes any subject specific criteria contained in Wikipedia:Notability (people) which includes WP:ENT.
  

This article lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources(plural) with significant coverage to establish notability. Current sources are -

• 6 YouTube references. Not independent and not considered a reliable source.
• 2 social media sites (Twitter, socialblade.com) not reliable or independent.
• onefootball.com - a football blog site.
• mirror.co.uk -m - One sentence trivial mention
• www.dailyecho.co.uk, and www.justgiving.com - subject not even mentioned.
• Jersey Evening Post - does contain significant coverage however it is a local paper serving an area with a population of around 100K. Paper/website has an editorial disclaimer that states "it does not give any warranty or representations, express or implied, about its accuracy, completeness, or appropriateness for a particular purpose."

The number of YouTube subscribers may indicate popularity however, that does not translate to notability without verifiable, reliable sources to back that up. CBS527 ^Talk 10:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC) reply

I get that YouTube videos aren't a reliable source, but those are cited to verify specific content in the article, not to establish notability. The number of subscribers is verifiable [15] from the definitive source. There's no way to categorically prove or disprove the "they might have gamed YouTube to artificially create subscribers" argument because we can't tell whether all those three million are real people. But what we can do is combine the evidence in front of us (as explained in WP:BASIC - the newspaper article plus the number of subscribers plus featuring twice in all-star football matches adds up to this subject being genuine rather than some sort of elaborate sham. (As to the Jersey Evening Post's disclaimer - surely that's a standard blanket precaution that most publications would take. It doesn't mean they're in the business of publishing fake news.) Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 11:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC) reply

"I get that YouTube videos aren't a reliable source, but those are cited to verify specific content in the article, not to establish notability." Youtube isn't a reliable source. That means it's not a reliable source for verifying content, per WP:RS. That includes "specific content", notability, # of subscribers, etc. Waggie ( talk) 16:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC) reply

It is entirely valid for the article to use the videos that the subject has created as a source for verifying the (reasonable) claims that the article makes about him. The guidance on video links states that "editors need to watch out for the potential unreliability of the user uploading the video" i.e. that we are to apply good judgment - it doesn't say that video links are not to be relied on at all. "Self-published videos may be used as sources of information about their creator if they meet the requirements seen at restrictions on using self-published sources" ( WP:ABOUTSELF)

Back to what you say about needing 3-5 sources (which is contradicted by WP:N saying "there is no fixed number of sources required"), multiple sources can mean two - see Wikipedia:Verifiability and notability#Notability.

I see that the article List of most subscribed users on YouTube is dependent on YouTube's subscriber counts - pinging @ Clbsfn and Jamesjpk: from WikiProject YouTube to get their view.

Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 17:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello Curb Safe Charmer, thanks for your reply. A notable individual's verified social media accounts are considered reliable for statements they make specifically about themselves, not about the things they do or have done, and it must be cited as such for context, please see WP:BLPSELFPUB and the two sections above that as well. Regarding 3-5 sources, I have stated my rationale already. Even the section you cite states "...but like most bare minimums, rarely enough." even if I disagree with it considering "two" as "multiple", considering the definitions of the relevant words. It's a moot point, however, because there is only one source with comprehensive coverage that is independent, and it's only a local paper. As for the list you refer to, it is extremely problematic and needs pruning down to what reliable sources report, plus other stuff exists is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. You should be aware also, that pinging a very specific set of users in a deletion discussion is canvassing and isn't allowed. Waggie ( talk) 17:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep regularly getting over a million viewers for Youtube videos is sufficient evidence of notability. Power~enwiki ( talk) 19:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi Power~enwiki, could you specify the notability criteria that establishes that? I'm not aware of any. Waggie ( talk) 20:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply

There is none (officially), it's my own personal opinion from reviewing a variety of these proposals over the last month. See my user/talk page for more info. Power~enwiki ( talk) 20:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi Power~enwiki, thanks for your reply! It's long established consensus (and established in guidelines) that establishing notability requires reliable sources. Even with the specific notability criteria, they still require reliable sources to verify the content. As Youtube (and other social media platforms) are established as NOT being reliable sources, we simply can't accept supposed viewership/subscribership on social media platforms where such numbers can easily be inflated as a reliable means of determining notability. Reliable sources must be used to support content in articles. Can you understand why we would need that as an encyclopedia? Wikipedia has enough credibility issues already. Waggie ( talk) 20:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Press coverage such as [16] leads me to believe the case for notability exists, even if it isn't in the article as written. The main reason I see to delete this article is that it's currently entirely self-promotional in nature. Power~enwiki ( talk) 20:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Power~enwiki, thanks again for your reply! As notability isn't inherited, the article you link to doesn't really help for establishing Chris Dixon's notability, as it doesn't even mention him at all, much less discuss him comprehensively. Perhaps he will be notable eventually, but certainly not now. I agree that even outside of the notability issue, the article is highly promotional. The thing about notability and sources is that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be summaries of what reliable sources say on a subject. If there aren't reliable sources discussing a subject, then there literally is nothing to summarize for Wikipedia article. Any article on Chris Dixon would have to be synthesized from a smattering of other sources, which wouldn't be encyclopedic either. Does that make sense? Waggie ( talk) 21:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply

I'm not convinced of your entire argument, but I'm convinced the article needs improvements before it can survive this process. I've struck my previous vote and remain neutral. Power~enwiki ( talk) 21:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Fair enough, thank you for discussing it with me, Power~enwiki. Waggie ( talk) 21:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete. It's sometimes hard to classify those type of articles. In the end, however, I think even with the cited coverage he is a WP:ONEEVENT phenomena. Perhaps merge to some list of youtube channels or such? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Amerification

Amerification (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

My first reaction was this was a duplicate of Americanization. After reading the article, I realize that it is about a similar but different concept. However, it is unreferenced and it is not clear if this is actually a popular concept. If referenced, I would recommend a merge with Americanization because neither article is very long, and the concepts are very closely related to each other. JDDJS ( talk) 17:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Also seems to overlap with the concepts covered in Cultural assimilation of Native Americans. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 17:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I thought this sounded plausible, down to the claimed distinction from Americanization (home/abroad). But it's pure WP:OR - there's no definition of the term anywhere, nor does it seem to be used e.g. in Hawaii as claimed for the stated meaning. I don't believe it's a WP:HOAX from the article's tone, but it is not only uncited but unciteable: there's nothing out there. I would have suggested a merge but I can't see anything we could keep, would be happy to be corrected on that. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 18:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete and probably redirect as anyone searching this term probably means Americanization. Hyperbolick ( talk) 18:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - WP is not the place for first publication. OR. Anmccaff ( talk) 23:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 17:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 17:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 17:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 17:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per the various above. The only "distinction" I can see between the "-isation/-ization" and "-fication" is that the article on Americanization doesn't currently talk much about a change of identity, while it just as easily could (the one on Russification does, which I think is why this article may have been created). I'd suggest it's a plausible redirect, but definitely not a standalone article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Celbridge. (non-admin closure) f e minist 15:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Celbridge Community School

Celbridge Community School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Not eligible for A7 since it's a school, otherwise it'd fit there to a tee. Fine as a sentence or two within Celbridge. Not notable otherwise as currently written. South Nashua ( talk) 17:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Celbridge. Does not have enough content available or notability currently for its own article. -- Dane ^talk 18:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Merge / Redirect to Celbridge per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. This relatively new (founded 2016) school has not yet been the subject of any significant coverage. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 18:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Merge/Redirect to Celbridge. There is some coverage of this school, primarily covering it's creation and some related issues. Such as [17] [18] Not enough to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Gab4gab ( talk) 19:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) f e minist 15:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Sarah Fisher Ames

Sarah Fisher Ames (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

From the U.S. Senate website, "Frustratingly little is known about the life and career of Sarah Fisher Ames..." It seems her only claims to notability are creating some busts of Abraham Lincoln and opening a hospital during the Civil War. That doesn't seem like enough to pass WP:N. Maybe I'm wrong, if someone can expand this here, I will withdraw my nom. South Nashua ( talk) 17:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

keep demonstrates WP:GNG. The current article doesn't have the best sources. But a quick Google search makes some great suggestions that will improve it:

• Melissa Dabakis, " Sculpting Lincoln: Vinnie Ream, Sarah Fisher Ames, and the Equal Rights Movement," American Art 22, no. 1 (Spring 2008): 78-101.
• A Sisterhood of Sculptors: American Artists in Nineteenth-Century Rome by Melissa Dabakis
• American Dreams: American Art to 1950 in the Williams College Museum of Art by Williams College. Museum of Art

MassiveEartha ( talk) 18:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Good enough. I still think she's borderline on notability, but there might be hope for improvement beyond this addition as well. I personally wasn't sure. In hindsight, a PROD probably would have been better here. South Nashua ( talk) 18:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

keep, as above. I'm taken by the likelihood that Ames was the instigator of (arguably) the most famous portrait of Lincoln: The Interminable, Everlasting Lincolns (Part 1). — jameslucas  ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 15:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep I'm waiting on my database renewal, but she appears in many contemporary newspaper articles. I can update the article later. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 22:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh ( talk) 17:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Martin Milanov

Martin Milanov (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

article isn't written in english; also fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 04:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 01:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 01:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep As of November 25, 2016 the article showed 11 times representation at highest level of competition on national team as well as presidency of national sports federation, passing WP:NHOCKEY #6 easily. Poor editing is not a AfD concern. Non-English pages are not deleted for lack of translation (usually marked with Template:Not English) instead unless an equivalent article exists in the language wikipedia. bg:wiki has no article on Мартин Миланов making it A7-ineligible. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete He has never competed at the highest level of hockey. His appearances on his national team were in divisions II and IIB. Those are the fourth and fifth levels of the IIHF championships. There is also no significant independent coverage, so neither WP:NHOCKEY nor WP:GNG is met. Papaursa ( talk) 02:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete. Hard to verify this is not a hoax with no inline citations to any of the claims. Currently fails WP:V as written. Reads like he may be notable, but no sources... plus, if Paperusa says he fails NHOCKEY, and he clearly fails GNG, it seem like a delete case. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Contrary to what is stated above he does not meet NHOCKEY as #6 says he must have played in the highest pool of the world championships, his team did not do that. - DJSasso ( talk) 10:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) f e minist 15:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Feras Bugnah

Feras Bugnah (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

lack of coverage to prove notability, unremarkable YouTube personality Mjbmr ( talk) 16:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 16:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 16:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Easily passes WP:GNG, per these sources: [19] [20] [21] [22]. These are the main english language sources, and include the New York Times. Seeing as this guy is from Saudi Arabia, there could be many more sources in arabic, infact at a first look there seems to be, 6 pages on google news of articles that show his name in arabic: [23]. AlessandroTiandelli333 ( talk) 16:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Nominator has failed to do their BEFORE. Clear passage of the GNG. Fox, Arab News, NYT etc. From 2011, 13, 14, 15, so it passes SUSTAINED. I suggest this be closed as SNOW keep. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 18:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 18:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep -- notable as a social activist rather than a YouTuber; see for example: On Saudi Arabia: Its People, Past, Religion, Fault Lines--and Future by Karen Elliott House. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Sourced, notable. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Dave Joseph (announcer)

Dave Joseph (announcer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails hockey notability criteria WP:NHOCKEY as he has not played in the top league (NHL). Ifnord ( talk) 15:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 16:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 16:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Doesn't qualify under NHOCKEY (which sets up no presumptive notability for arena personnel), and no evidence he meets the GNG. Ravenswing 19:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - No specific guidelines for hockey announcers, portending that the subject needs to pass GNG. With what I searched, I do not think it does that. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 23:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Per others, easily fails WP:GNG. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 04:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Reality Dudes

Reality Dudes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I don't think that the references are strong enough to establish notability. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Lacks non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources needed to pass WP:WEBCRIT. The references in the article fail the independence, reliability or significant coverage tests. An independent search for sources gets only incidental mentions. There is nothing that reliably distinguishes the subject from run of the mill. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete as corporate spam. Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle for unremarkable film studios. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing ⁺⁺ 14:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Deb Lawrence

Deb Lawrence (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

NN artist fails WP:NARTIST . Sourcing may fail GNG as many primaries and listings. WP:NOTPROMO (further WP:COIN#Deb Lawrence) Widefox; talk 14:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per widefox, and thanks for grabbing this- I saw it earlier and intended to bring it here but got distracted. A WP:BEFORE brings up an absolute paucity of sources ( [24]), most of them unreliable (blogs and zines, for example). The only other sources are either local news outlets giving passing mentions with no depth or persistence of coverage, or primary sources lacking independence from the subject. Fails WP:NARTIST per nom. Fails WP:ANYBIO by the dearth of reliable sourcing and coverage. And this is eithout even getting into the WP:PROMO / WP:UPE / WP:COI aspects of the article's creation. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Edwardx ( talk) 23:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete If after extensive cleanup almost nothing remains to indicate why the subject is important or significant, it's safe to say that the notability criteria have not been met. Even in the deleted bits, I have found nothing that would support a claim to notability per WP:ARTIST. Mduvekot ( talk) 21:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete for failing the GNG and Halfhearted pox upon myself (can't really blame anyone else) for not checking notability before I spent all that time improving it. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 20:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Cheikh Anta Diop (Digital painting)

Cheikh Anta Diop (Digital painting) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I don't think that the references really establish the notability of this as a work of art, since they are really about the subject of the portrait. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. There is a claim of significance: The artwork … has been referenced by scholars and cited online by various Francophone and English intellectuals … but it not sufficiently supported by references. The only cited scholar is Chika Ezeanya-Esiobu. I can't tell from the article if the work has ever been exhibited or used in a way that would make it notable. Mduvekot ( talk) 19:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I didn't find anything significant about this painting and it's creator. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 12:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Ubiquitous Telecommunication Technology

Ubiquitous Telecommunication Technology (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

A7 was declined because the article creator contested on the talk page saying that it was part a subsidiary of Etisalat. There was no evidence offered for this, and I couldn't find any reliable sourcing that says this. In any case, this is a non-notable company that doesn't have coverage in sources, and because of the lack of association between the firm and the claimed parent company in sourcing, deletion appears to be the best option at this time. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 15:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 15:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Non-notable commercial blurb. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC). reply
• Delete, I can say for sure this would not pass AfC. A non-notable corporation Eddie891 ( talk) 22:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Debate over a British Independence Day observed in the United Kingdom

Debate over a British Independence Day observed in the United Kingdom (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Following the close of the previous AfD as 'no consensus', I think it is now clear that this article contains nothing that cannot comfortably be included in the Brexit article. Essentially, WP:NOTNEWS; the idea may have trended on twitter for aboy three minutes but a twitterstorm does not confer notability. TheLongTone ( talk) 13:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I don't believe is a notable topic now, nor has it ever been in the past. I think WP:SYNTH still applies here. Perhaps we could avoid repeating the same arguments made in the last AfD again, and interested editors could review that before rehashing the same lengthy arguments. Shritwod ( talk) 14:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep This is a very real debate, many brittish national newspapers wrote articles about it [25] [26] just to name 2, Nigel Farage, a major UK politician has called for this to be a national holiday many times. AlessandroTiandelli333 ( talk) 16:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

  Newspapers write articles about lots of things. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Not do we have article on everything Farage has ever said. Bondegezou ( talk) 19:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete as above and before. Useful content can be merged into the Brexit article, but this is a WP:CFORK. Bondegezou ( talk) 15:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and others, and summarise in 50 words in the main Brexit article. Jdcooper ( talk) 16:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• I'm inclined to keep this, mostly because of the large number of reliable sources. I see above that somebody proposed this be included in the Brexit article, but I would oppose that for length. It's a distraction to have a long discussion about something similar but not the same thing in an article. I doubt this would be kept at 50 words within the Brexit article either... White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete as a flash in the pan, albeit one with reliable sources. In the event that a public holiday along these lines is established (and I'm sure there was media coverage suggesting that the date Article 50 was triggered was "Independence Day", so surely the date that everything's finalised with Brexit would attract similar coverage and thoughts), that's the time to create an article. At the moment, it's a proposed public holiday, and a lot of places moot these without meriting articles. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment (added 14 May, my time). There are comparisons being made to other proposals (or at least proposed-proposals) in British politics at the moment by the article creator a couple of entries below. The second Scottish independence referendum is - as far as I'm aware on the other side of the world - something which is substantially further advanced, in that it would be highly unlikely not to get as far as Westminster (as opposed to a potential public holiday commemorating an event which is still ongoing and which isn't sort of "set to happen" yet). The question of "Londependence" has (per its own article) been discussed at least by some since the 1990s, and apparently more loudly since 2014, much less 2016. That said, while it doesn't really enter into considerations here, that latter may not necessarily be the best example of an article in and of itself, and may also do better in articles about London's government or reactions to Brexit. A discussion for another day, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete This is a perfect example of a topic we should not cover. This is speculation sourced mainly from a couple of dubious tabloid newspapers and blogs. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. AusLondonder ( talk) 04:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - very obvious keep too. The lack of research or logic here is bizarre. Petitions with national media coverage? Yep. Discussed in Parliament? Yep. Official government position on the issue delivered and published? Yep. Explicit praise and criticism of the national holiday proposal by renowned politicians and public figures? Yep. International media traction? Yep. Not allowed to exist though because well... nothing at all really. "I don't believe" it's notable? Ok then, belief is a powerful thing after all. "Wikipedia is not a newspaper", who said it was? "CFORK" they say (which is multiple separate articles treating the same subject) this subject is about the debate surrounding a proposed national holiday on 23 June in the UK annually. So, what's it a repeat of, exactly? So would Remembrance Sunday and World War I be the same article by those standards? Because they're the exact same thing right? From now on in the world, both the event itself and the annual observance and/or celebration of a historical event are literally the same thing on Wikipedia. Nothing resulting from Brexit will ever be it's own topic in the history of time, because someone said it's a "flash in the pan" - no reason or evidence necessary. "Mainly sourced from a couple of dubious newspapers" - not true, but who cares? Somebody said so, so there. Has anyone got any actual analysis or evidence to disprove that this is a factual concept, that has been and is being proposed with enough notability to find national coverage? None so far. Please someone state some analysis or evidence against this proposed national holiday finding hugely notable political and media traction without creating strawmans or just totally unresearched irrelevant charges against the article, like "we don't have an article about everything Nigel Farage says". Great, who's asking for that? Nobody. Just a way of belittling AlessandroTiandelli333's point perhaps. And no, because the national holiday has not become official or "happened" yet is not a reason to delete an article outlining the debate (both support and opposition) around the topic. That literally makes no sense. We will need to delete London independence and Proposed second Scottish independence referendum now then. They do not exist, because I say so. Really both those concepts are literally just Brexit now anyway, right? The proposal and campaigning for London to be an autonomous city state is explicitly and conceptually the exact same thing as the EU referendum saga, right? A referendum on Scottish independence happening in the future, a proposal gaining political and media traction is absolutely conceptually inseparable from the political timeline that Brexit represents. It's literally exactly the same thing and it's CFORK, because reasons and stuff. Mdmadden ( talk) 13:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note Mdmadden is the creator of the article. Bondegezou ( talk) 15:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete blatant editorializing in the title, online petitions aren't the subject of Wikipedia articles, I see no sign the House of Commons ever discussed the matter. Power~enwiki ( talk) 08:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Every petition that gains a number of votes is 'discussed' in the Commons. I believe that this occupied them for about two minutes. I've no idea why the article creator thinks that this is a current topic; as the references show, this ludicrous idea was the subject of media attention for a couple of days. TheLongTone ( talk) 13:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• As in the previous AfD: Delete or briefly merge to Brexit. Is part of that issue, WP:NOTNEWS applies.  Sandstein  06:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Laura Ikeji

Laura Ikeji (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

subject fails WP:GNG. I could only find gossip news about her marriage which isn't enough to establish notability. The article creator should also note that notability is not inherited. — Oluwa2Chainz »» ( talk to me) 13:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Noted: notability is not inherited i feel her been married to a famous football and been a sister of a famous blogger would grant her an article and also being part of a movie "Undercover Lover" which also has top star's like " Alexx Ekubo" & " Deyemi Okanlawon" would grant her WP:GNG but if the case remains the same, then i advice an admin help delete the article instantly or if you can @ Oluwa2Chainz:.-- MKJ6006 ( talk) 13:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 16:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG, Just because the sister or husband is popular doesn't warrant a page for her. Zazzysa ( talk) 17:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG. The fact that her older sister is notable doesn't make her notable.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nominator, notability is not inherited. Celestina007 ( talk) 20:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply

QuoVadis

QuoVadis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable company. Any coverage I can find is either pretty much incidental, a recycled press release, or applies to its recent acquistion. Shritwod ( talk) 13:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep: QuoVadis is a notable company for the following reasons: i) it is one of the leading providers of managed PKI in the world, and one of the top dozen suppliers of TLS/SSL certificates providing website security that is visible in the browser UI for many prominent university systems, national governments, and multinational corporations (see 2015 market share from Netcraft https://www.netcraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/assurance_breakdown.png), ii) it is a well-known Qualified trust service provider in Europe issuing eID credentials under eIDAS, including PKIoverheid in Holland and SuisseID in Switzerland, and iii) is a vocal participant in discussions affecting internet standards public key infrastructure including the CA/Browser Forum and the Mozilla discussion groups. The certificate authority sector has been turbulent and this company has maintained consistent presence, especially as the role of CAs becomes increasingly important in efforts to "encrypt everything" on the Internet. All of the above cause users to seek independent information about the company from sources such as Wikipedia. The page has existed for years without challenge. If this company is non-notable then certainly most of the pages in the "certificate authorities" category Category:Certificate authorities have similar standing. Cryptoki ( talk) 14:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment I found this [27] PC Mag article about QuoVadis (not much substantial) and few passing mentions in usual tech sources. Reasons stated above by Cryptoki are (at least for me) too weak, I´m leaning to delete. Pavlor ( talk) 09:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I'd suggest a merge to holding company, but it got deleted too: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WISeKey. Regarding Cryptoki's arguments: 1) - uncited personal opinion (who says they are the biggest?). 2) ditto, who says they are well-known? It seems to fail GNG and NCORP. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Driveway Games

Driveway Games (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable company. No reliable sources to be found. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 13:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 15:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete as non-notable advert. Ifnord ( talk) 15:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete as clear WP:PROMO. No salvagable content, even if notable somehow by WP:NCORP. Quick search doesn't bring up anything for WP:GNG. —   HELLKNOWZ  ▎ TALK 17:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Teamemo

Teamemo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

It is too soon to consider creating an article on this subject; I cannot find the required significant coverage of this subject in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, as required by Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Biogeographist ( talk) 12:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist ( talk) 12:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: A WP:SPA article describing a piece of software launched at the end of last year. No claim to notability, and no independent coverage provided or found in my searches. AllyD ( talk) 10:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Dialectric ( talk) 17:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) f e minist 15:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Jennie Everton Clarke

Jennie Everton Clarke (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Most of the sources listed are unavailable online. A search for other sources to support notability was unsuccessful. Magnolia677 ( talk) 00:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep RS for a subject this old aren't readily available - will err to keep for historical context Cllgbksr ( talk) 06:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep as more history collections from GLAM institutions are digitized, online sources will be available to help fill out this article. TeriEmbrey ( talk) 14:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Even with no sources, what is it about this person that makes them notable? Magnolia677 ( talk) 20:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Article makes reference to coverage subject received by American Magazine for her orphanage, that she was a woman running an orphanage for boys, evidently it wasn't the norm back in the day. Cllgbksr ( talk) 00:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep I looked through the sources included in the article, and Clarke seems to have gotten coverage in sources ranging several decades. Her time period and common name will make finding sources somewhat difficult, but I do think there are enough sources to meet notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 06:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Further Comment The August 16th, 1900 edition of the "Christian Evangelist" contains a decent paragraph with details about the number of orphans Clarke cared for and some rather glowing praise. It can be found here on page 1044 (219 on the Internet Archive). There also seems to be a bit of coverage on newsapers.com, but I don’t have access to the website. Regardless, the books cited in the Wikipedia article contain several pages of coverage each, and there seems to be several media sources covering Clarke. There is enough information to write a substantial article even if we limit ourselves to the known sources, so I think notability requirements have been met. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 21:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep: per Spirit of Eagle. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Sensory words

Sensory words (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject of article is not an accepted new research term. It appears the article creator conceived the term and wrote the article to match. No evidence of real world notability of this concept. KDS4444 ( talk) 12:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Rather sad that this needs to go, because it's actually quite well written by a new editor - but it's a magazine article or a blog, not an encyclopaedia article. Seems to be WP:OR with a few references thrown in. None of the references contains the phrase "sensory words", the second one is a blog and the third is only tangentially related to the theme of the article. Searching gets a number of hits relating to marketing or creative writing, but I didn't find anything discussing the term sufficiently in-depth. Neiltonks ( talk) 12:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Ending with "Now we have planted the seeds into your mind, allow your imagination to work, and conjure up its own magic…this is the power of sensory words!" -- I would call this a number of things. "Well written" is not one of them. Anyway, yes, delete per nom and without a trace of sadness. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete as OR and essay.-- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 08:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nom Power~enwiki ( talk) 08:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article; as well as being original research. Edward321 ( talk) 14:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Oni Hasan

Oni Hasan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

The article is not significant in terms of WP:MUSICBIO notability criteria. Didn't found any individual sources and remarkable achievement about the subject. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 05:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 05:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 05:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nomination. Atudu ( talk) 05:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete or merge into Warfaze, I see no independent case for notability. Power~enwiki ( talk) 17:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Mississippi (time)

Mississippi (time) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Unit of time that is unencyclopdeic. Meatsgains ( talk) 01:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. At a pinch, one could redirect to the article on Second and perhaps add a sentence about counting seconds this way, but the nominator is right that this isn't encyclopedic in and of itself. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not a unit of time, just part of an expression, which doesn't even qualify it as a deletable WP:DICTDEF. 31,536,000 Mississippi's = 1 year? Yeah, right. Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Indeed, its sole reference is the Wiktionary page "Appendix:Words used as placeholders to count seconds," which is precisely where it belongs. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Nothing left here worth keeping, not worth a redirect. (amended) Power~enwiki ( talk) 19:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Nonsense outside of the US, and not notable within the US. Some people use "Mississippi" as an estimate for a second, other people use another word or phrase... so what? Not encyclopedic. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 12:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Unencyclopedic. Mississippi is not called a unit of time in any reliable source I've seen. Wiktionary is not a reliable source. Station1 ( talk) 22:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Mississippi#In popular culture, which briefly mentions this. Plausible search term and plausible target, but it's not notable by itself as others have said. Smartyllama ( talk) 16:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) f e minist 15:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Ben Bowns

Ben Bowns (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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