Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 14 May 16 May >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Edward Dring

Edward Dring (  | 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 does not meet WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. The google hits at first give the impression of significant coverage, but none are in depth and many are reviews for Voice from the Stone. There is a to-be-released film w/o indepth coverage of the subject Dlohcierekim ( talk) 22:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:54, 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) 22:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

GTS Wrestling

GTS Wrestling (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Did a little research on this, it appears to be a toy collector who reviewed action figures & expanded it in to back yard wrestling. No TV deals, no PPV, no big stars. No real press even in wrestling fandom magazines, just a few entries in Wikis here & there. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. JamesG5 ( talk) 22:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:59, 21 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) 22:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Ryan Isiah Reid

Ryan Isiah Reid (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Semi-advert for what appears to be a non-qualifying semi-pro footballer playing for third- and fourth-tier teams. Orange Mike | Talk 21:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 22:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 22:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 22:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 22:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

In the article it stats that he played with Toronto Skillz league 1 Ontario team which is a semi-professional Canadian league. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshSmith89 ( talk • contribs) 23:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete. Non-notable soccer player. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:58, 21 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. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 02:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Hank Thomas

Hank Thomas (  | 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 person is certainly very accomplished, but is in fact notable for a WP:SINGLEEVENT. While numerous secondary sources support his existence, every one of them centers around his participation in a Freedom Ride. There is no indication of receiving any significant awards, or of any significant leadership in the civil rights movement. Participating in a freedom ride does not guarantee a Wikipedia article. Magnolia677 ( talk) 21:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep He has been featured specifically in various news stories for his role in the civil rights movement beyond a single event (he was involved in several notable events including the bus burning and a court case he raised). [1] [2] [3] [4] Of course news stories mention that he was a freedom rider, but WP:SINGLEEVENT applies when the only coverage of somebody is in the context of a single event and not where they receive coverage for years after about their other work ("if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified"). He is included in the International Civil Rights Walk of Fame which is a significant honor (most inductees are notable). -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 09:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Except for the first source listed, the other three focus almost exclusively on his participation in the freedom rides, a single event. The subsequent media coverage about his business and art collection would not have been notable if not for his participation in (not leadership of) the freedom rides. Magnolia677 ( talk) 22:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per Colapeninsula. Also, Hank participated in four Freedom Rides, not one - a preparatory ride on April 22, 1961, the original CORE Freedom Ride during May 4–17, 1961 for which he is best known, a Mississippi Freedom Ride on May 24, 1961, and a New Jersey to Arkansas CORE Freedom Ride during July 13–24, 1961. Please see the List of Freedom Rides section for details. Mitchumch ( talk) 17:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete His role as a businessman is not enough to make him notable. His role in the Freedom Rides was not formative enough to make him notable either. He was just one of many participants, and being a participant in such an event does not make one notable. The article goes too deeply into coat racking other subjects. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
    • @ Johnpacklambert: Hank was one of 18 participants in the original CORE Freedom Ride and one of 7 participants in the bus that was firebombed in Anniston, Alabama. That Freedom Ride in combination with the Nashville Student Movement Freedom Ride in 1961 was a pivotal event in the Civil Rights Movement. It is on par with the Greensboro sit-ins of 1960, the Birmingham campaign of 1963, and the Harlem riot of 1964. Each of those events served as a massive catalyst for subsequent events. Hanks continued participation in three other Freedom Rides has placed him in a unique position that few of the other 436 participants can claim. Mitchumch ( talk) 06:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Not every footsoldier in the civil rights movement was notable. Just as the Brooklyn Bridge is notable, not every one of the hundreds who build it are. Every argument to keep this article centers on the fact that this person--along with 436 others--participated in something notable. Yet I see nothing particularly notable about his participation. Being involved in a historical event does not automatically make you notable, and there is nothing to indicate he was a leader or "major participant". Magnolia677 ( talk) 13:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
"Being involved" in this historical event went beyond Thomas being one of the first Freedom Riders with the CORE group, where he was almost burned alive and, in escaping the burning bus, was whacked on the side of the head with a baseball bat. Then what he did after that horrendous and life-threatening-to-the-extreme experience was what few went on to do - he joined the continuation of the Freedom Ride 10 days later, when it was picked up by the Nashville Student Movement. John Lewis was another original rider who completed the entire trip. The Freedom Ride ended in Jackson, Mississippi, and there Thomas was immediately arrested and jailed, probably for trying to desegregate the segregated Waiting Room. This fellow is as notable as notable-worthy on Wikipedia can be, per sources. Randy Kryn 15:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Being "almost burned alive" and "whacked on the side of the head with a baseball bat" do not contribute to notability. From my read, and from the arguments put forward in the AfD, this person was a non-notable footsoldier. Perhaps some mention of Thomas could instead be added to the Freedom Riders article. He was certainly no Fannie Lou Hamer. Magnolia677 ( talk) 18:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Possibly if, after almost being burned alive and living through a skull-crushing swing of a baseball bat, he had run off, I could see your point. His main notoriety is that he boarded the next Freedom Ride bus with John Lewis and others, and rode it to the finish. Fannie Lou Hamer is someone else, who was active a little later. This page is about Hank Thomas, who is as notable per Wikipedia criteria as Hamer and other noted civil rights activists of the 1960s. Randy Kryn 19:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Magnolia677: Hank has received sufficient coverage in reliable sources to warrant the existence of his article page. I've searched through numerous articles listed in the ProQuest database. If need be, then I can start listing every newspaper article that covered him on his article page. Hank is as notable as Joseph McNeil, Franklin McCain, Ezell Blair Jr., and David Richmond who all initiated the Greensboro sit-ins. Being "almost burned alive" and "whacked on the side of the head with a baseball bat" by pro-segregationist are precisely why the spectacle of that event and its participants are remembered and taught to students. That violent reaction motivated others to continue to challenge pro-segregationist thru more Freedom Rides. Mitchumch ( talk) 21:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep, as a major participant in the Freedom Rides (Rides, not just one Ride) Thomas was chosen as the spokesperson at the recent dedication of the Freedom Riders Monument. His "single event" (actually four single events) was one of the most historic and courageous ongoing events in the early 1960s. Per adequate sourcing, and per Mitchumch and Colapeninsula who summarize Thomas' notability correctly. Randy Kryn 11:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep = while not all the Freedom Riders are notable, the more active ones certainly would be, as is this subject. Bearian ( talk) 23:18, 22 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) 01:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Joseph Dear

Joseph Dear (  | 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 found no significant coverage per WP:BIO. SL93 ( talk) 21:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - an obit by itself could be a reliable source, but does not determine notability per se, unless it's a feature such as The New York Times. I don't see how a CIO of a state agency, even a big one, is automatically notable. Bearian ( talk) 23:21, 22 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 00:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Charles de Chassiron (British diplomat)

Charles de Chassiron (British diplomat) (  | 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 tagged this BLP as requiring more sources earlier today, before setting out to find some. I'd assumed that a reasonable number of independent, reliable sources would exist, but my searches haven't really turned up significant coverage, so I'm now not convinced that the subject meets WP:GNG. Cordless Larry ( talk) 20:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Probably needs a cite for that to meet WP:V. Artw ( talk) 13:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Done. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above. Artw ( talk) 13:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for adding the source, Necrothesp. I presume that the rationale behind WP:ANYBIO #1 is that someone who has received such an award is likely to have been the subject of significant coverage, but the issue is that I can't find that coverage. Note that the guideline states that "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards" and that "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" (emphasis mine). I would still like to see some coverage of the subject in independent sources. Cordless Larry ( talk) 15:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keepKeep. the award is sufficient. Presu,ed in a case like that means that he is so likely to have sufficient coverage, that if we cannot find it, its the faullt of the available search tools and our access to sources. It would have to be actually shown there aren;t any sources (there are special conditions where that can be done, but it's not easy). DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Unless I'm missing something, WP:ANYBIO doesn't use the wording "presumed" though, DGG - it uses "likely", which has a different meaning. In any case, what sorts of sources would this coverage that we can't access be in? I have checked newspaper archives, library catalogues, etc., but can't really think where else coverage would exist. Cordless Larry ( talk) 07:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply
You are right. I was intending to use that argument about presumed for the SNGs where the term is used in this manner. The GNG uses it in a different manner--that meeting the GNG only leads to a presumption but not a guarantee of notability . But for the question you asked, in this this case what I think would have to be checked is the major newspapers in the capital where he was ambassador and possibly where his other positions were. Have you checked Estonian newspapers? (changing to weak keep, btw) DGG ( talk ) 15:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Nexis has reports from the Baltic News Service that mention his name, DGG, and there are a couple of French and Italian sources, but from memory they are only mentions too. I'll take another look tomorrow and also check whether Estonian newspapers are included in Nexis. Cordless Larry ( talk) 22:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply
I've checked Nexis again, DGG, and while doing so thought I should set out the coverage I found there, since many others don't have access. The vast majority of mentions of his name in English sources are in lists of attendees of events such as dinners, and in the Independent newspaper's list of birthdays. They can safely be disregarded, I think. There are also some brief mentions in the Court Circular, as you'd expect. The French-language sources seem to be about a different Charles de Chassiron. The Italian source is about a state visit by the Queen to Italy, and just mentions him once. Most of the Baltic News Service articles are just mentions (e.g. at the end of a short piece on a British parliamentary delegation visiting Estonia, "Before their departure on Wednesday, the British MPs will visit the Baltic center of the British Council in Tallinn and meet British Ambassador Charles de Chassiron"). One of them is a bit more substantial, covering a meeting between de Chassiron and the Estonian PM in 2004, but it's short (210 words) and pretty routine. To the main issue, though, which is Estonian newspapers. I haven't found an easy way to check whether newspapers are included in Nexis's database by country, but looking at the alphabetical list, Postimees isn't there, which isn't a promising sign. I did check the newspaper's web archive (results here), but it would need an Estonian speaker to check the extent of the coverage in each of those results. Cordless Larry ( talk) 07:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
I consider it borderline. I think it ought to meet the standards for notability , but a number of years ago the standardsfor ambassadors were tightened. I argued at the time that it was the top level of a major professor, and should therefore be presumed notable . In practice, this not have consensus, though articles of ambassadors of major countries to major countries usually do not qualify. I admit it would be stretching it a bit to call Latvia a major country. I stand by my weak keep, as I thin kmy reasons still valid, but the consensus will decide.
I want to say that in my opinion you have done an exceptionally through job of looking for documentation. It still won't get print sources, but it is much more careful than the usual superficial searches usually seen at AfD, and based on this, I will take the results of your checks very seriously. U;m quite impressed. DGG ( talk ) 09:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Nexis does include print newspaper sources, DGG, though with the caveat that Estonian newspapers seem to be missing. I suppose that there could be other print publications with coverage. In any case, I think I agree that this is a borderline case, and I'm not that familiar with how diplomats tend to fair at AfD. If the article is kept, I will try to use the sources I've found to ensure it is fully sourced. Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Oh, and thanks for the compliment! It's not necessary, but is appreciated. Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:55, 21 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) 22:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Extreme World Wrestling

Extreme World Wrestling (  | 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 promotion. Relies on primary sources. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 19:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 19:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 19:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:35, 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 speedy keep. Ah yes I remember the NMEDIA thing now......., Well as the previous discussion got no where I don't particularly want another long and tiresome debate over NMEDIA so as such closing as Withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 19:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Tone FM

Tone FM (  | 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 radio station, Found these [5] [6] about the station mocking homeless people however other than that there's a few one-bit mentions, Fails RADIO NMEDIA & GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 18:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
WP:RADIO is the WikiProject. The notability criteria for radio stations are spelled out at WP:NMEDIA. Bearcat ( talk) 18:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Whoops sorry I thought Radio would've linked back to NMEDIA, I've amended the comment, Cheers, – Davey2010 Talk 18:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. While this definitely needs more sourcing than it has before it could be considered a good article, it doesn't need any more sourcing than it has to satisfy WP:NMEDIA: the base criteria that a radio station has to meet to be eligible for a Wikipedia article are that it is verifiable in at least one reliable source as (a) having a license from the appropriate broadcast regulator, and (b) originating at least some of its own programming in its own studios. As long as those conditions are met, a radio station need claim nothing else that would make it a special case above and beyond any other radio station — media outlets are one of those areas where Wikipedia's stated and consensus-established goal is to be as complete as feasibly possible a reference for all verifiable members of their class of topic. (No, we obviously can't be perfect about it — but our goal is to get and stay as close to "all radio stations that meet the criteria, without exception" as we can realistically get.) So this should absolutely be flagged for refimprove, because it does indeed need more referencing than this before it can be considered a good article — but to be keepable, all a radio station actually has to do is show at least one reliable source (which the BBC certainly is) which verifies that the base criteria for notability are met. Obviously we would still prefer more sourcing than is present in the article right now — but to get a radio station over the base inclusion criteria, the only thing we require is that the reliable sourcing isn't sitting at zero. Bearcat ( talk) 18:46, 21 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) 01:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Mynd

Mynd (  | 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 about a non-notable company formed last year. The sources cited in the article consist of press releases, routine coverage, and coverage about the founder's previous company. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH for lack of available independent sources. - Mr X 18:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:54, 21 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) 01:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

M G Moula Miah

M G Moula Miah (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Businessman with no indication of notability per WP:BIO. No significant coverage online in WP:Reliable sources, just passing mentions. Most of the references cited here are brief mentions in local press, or profiles from businesses connected with him. The one reference from a national paper (Daily Star) only mentions his name in passing as one of 13 recipients of a business commendation. I had tagged it for notability, hoping someone who reads Bengali might find some WP:RS on him in the Bangladesh press, but now someone in Solihull has just removed that without explanation. Uncle Roy ( talk) 17:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy ( talk) 17:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy ( talk) 17:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy ( talk) 17:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I think he is close to notability, and possibly would be if there were easier access to older press not online. However, with what is available I regret I could find little coverage focused directly on him, although sources such as this [7] do focus on him in part. This recognition from the government is impressive indeed, but does not seem like enough on its own. There is also an article focused on him included on the main page, an Evening Mail article from October 1995 called “Man with a mission to back Bangladeshi food.” But that still does not seem like quite enough to me, all combined. I though his restaurant Rajnagar Tandoori might be notable, as it did garnish an impressive 2006 award at The British Curry Awards, but came up short looking for sources as well. I do think some of the content on his page might be worth adding to Guild of Bangladeshi Restaurateurs, maybe in a new section for past presidents. Yvarta ( talk) 00:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There appears to be sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry from person(s) connected with the subject of the article. All of the content has so far been added by two WP:SPAs, one of which has so far only uploaded and linked annotated press clippings and personal photos of the subject sourced as "own work", along with the previously mentioned anon editor in Solihull. Article creator and the anon editor have also been repeatedly removing the AFD template. Also worth noting that the "New York Times" clipping is clearly an advertising insert: the typefaces aren't the ones used by the NYT, the tone is promotional, and the grammar is very poor. Uncle Roy ( talk) 03:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:30, 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. Kurykh ( talk) 01:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Erasmus Student Network Slovakia

Erasmus Student Network Slovakia (  | 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 section of Erasmus Student Network. Google search reveals no independent in-depth coverage. Sourced relevant details beyond the common functions of a country-specific subsection could be mentioned in the main article. GermanJoe ( talk) 16:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe ( talk) 17:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe ( talk) 17:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:30, 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 redirect to List of Wikipedias. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Doteli Wikipedia

Doteli Wikipedia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is every edition of Wikipedia automatically notable? I don't think this passes WP:NWEB since a web search only turns up other WMF sites and mirrors, as well as articles about the Doteli language. Jc86035 ( talk) Use {{ re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 17:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:30, 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 redirect to Twenty One Pilots discography. Keeping in mind the intensive edit warring, there is unanimous consensus that indefinite protection or full protection be applied. ( non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 04:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Regional at Best

Regional at Best (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If you need to view the content, look at a version that contained text. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. This is an early recording by a notable group, but by itself is not notable. I have looked for sources to satisfy GNG or NALBUM and none exist. The ones that the fans bring up are mentions of content in the album or discussions of members at the time of the recording, but nothing concrete. Taking to Afd as requested here Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

An admin will have to include the AfD notice on the page as it's locked. The tool I use added it here Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
I did that. Note that this is the version editors should look at when deciding on notability. -- NeilN talk to me 15:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:30, 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 Moved to Draft:Grant Knoche. When an open AFD points to a redirect or an untagged page, a bot adds it to WP:BADAFD, which is where I noticed this one. In the scheme of things, it's not a big deal - that's why we have the bot. I've done the necessary here. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Grant Knoche

Grant Knoche (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLPPROD'd by me, but declined because the "References" section contained a GOOGLE SEARCH LINK. I'm serious. KMF ( talk) 14:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: Actually, it was the Instagram link, not the Google search link, that was the problem. I have previously argued that links like that should not prevent BLPPRODs, but the consensus of the community is that they should, so ... that's what we do. -- joe decker talk 14:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 17:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 17:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • PROBLEM NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP: Page has been moved from Grant Knoche to Draft:Grant Knoche. I see no consensus above to userfy the page, the move left a big This template is being used in the wrong namespace. To nominate this talk page for deletion, go to Miscellany for deletion. on the page, and nobody closed this AfD. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:29, 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 redirect to Fishbowl Inventory. (non-admin closure) f e minist 00:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

David K Williams

David K Williams (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Some people have complained over the years (on the talk page and in edit summaries) that this is a puff piece for a non-notable individual, and I agree. Article is lacking in in-depth coverage in a breadth of reliable secondary sources. Citobun ( talk) 14:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:29, 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) 22:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Ang Panday (2017 film)

Ang Panday (2017 film) (  | 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:NFF made it clear that articles about films should not be created until principal photography has begun as supported by reliable source; not the case with this one. Blue sphere 13:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 17:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 17:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:29, 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 redirect to Tatineni Rama Rao. A merger can be performed by accessing the page history. (non-admin closure) f e minist 00:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Khabardar (unreleased film)

Khabardar (unreleased film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated for deletion as shelved films do not have their own article unless the dates are announced. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:28, 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. Kurykh ( talk) 01:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

REC*IT

REC*IT (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fundamentally a product listing with little evidence of notability. Created by a COI ring related to the software developer's parent company. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Antonseidler). Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 12:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 17:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 17:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:28, 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 no consensus. After two relistings, no consensus for a particular outcome has arisen within this discussion for these articles. The last two !votes come across as possibly only being based upon the Battle of Tin Keraten article listed in the section header, and may not take the other related pages nominated for deletion herein into consideration. This is per the singular wording used in the last two !votes (e.g. "it does appear to be...", "not a battle..."). North America 1000 01:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply


Battle of Tin Keraten

Battle of Tin Keraten (  | 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 one of about ten so-called "battles" (listed in the Northern Mali conflict template) that really just amount to small clashes. They don't have significant press coverage, not surprisingly, and don't merit articles. I don't see any hits searching for "Battle of xxx" from reliable sources. (There are more listed, but let's start with these.)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Second Battle of Gao (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (88 men vs about 300)
Third Battle of Gao (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (1200 vs about 36)
Fourth Battle of Gao (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (1700 vs 40)
Fifth Battle of Gao (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (? vs 9+)
Battle of Khalil (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Battle of Tigharghar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Battle of Timbuktu (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (? vs 50)
Battle of Djebok (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (460 vs ?)
Battle of Hamakouladji (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (7 killed)
Battle of Araouane (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Clarityfiend ( talk) 00:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:28, 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.


  • True, I only seriously examine one. They are all much the same, minimal coverage, shouldn't be titled "battle", and all could be merged. Actually, I recommend merging them all to the conflict they are part of. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Bboy Hannibal

Bboy Hannibal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A series of youtube videos, IMDb links, and a Facebook page do not make a person notable. Article fails WP:BIO. KDS4444 ( talk) 16:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

How else can you prove a dancer is notable? Their actions are only recorded in videos and pics. The links are from official accounts and the dancer is in the videos and pics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugenbee ( talk • contribs) 17:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:51, 21 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 Twelve Colonies. Clear consensus against a separate article. No consensus between delete and merge. The redirect is a compromise that allows merging content from history if anybody is interested. If Twelve Colonies is itself deleted, this article will eventually share its fate.  Sandstein  09:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Quorum of Twelve

Quorum of Twelve (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor fictional element with no real-world significance, all sources are limited to plot summaries and other in-universe mentions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Disambiguate Clarityfiend's observation is accurate: this name, with a slight stylistic difference belongs to an LDS leadership body. On purpose, actually. So for the BSG bits, Merge into the franchise itself (what little needs to merge) but keep this as a disambiguation page, maybe with a brief explanation of the Glen Larson connection between the two terms. Jclemens ( talk) 06:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 11:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:38, 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. No consensus to delete these as a group. Individual articles can be renominated.  Sandstein  14:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC) reply

British Heavyweight Championship (XWA)

British Heavyweight Championship (XWA) (  | 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 sports championships. The article relies on primary sources. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 14:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC) Also nominating the following for the same reasons: reply

British Light Heavyweight Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
British Lightweight Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
British Mid-Heavyweight Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
British Open Tag Team Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
British Welterweight Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
All-England Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
NWA Scottish Heavyweight Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
European Heavyweight Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
British Flyweight Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
British Empire/Commonwealth Heavyweight Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
British Commonwealth Junior Heavyweight Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
These are NOT "regional titles" - they are national titles of a sovereign state (the UK) defended on that country's mainstream national TV. Romomusicfan ( talk) 02:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep these ones at least:

This set of titles were (and still are) important and historic in the UK and were regularly defended on national network TV ( ITV). Are sourced from respected reliable source (Wrestling-Titles.com) although some need this citing properly (will fix). It's frankly astonishing that anyone could suggest that these titles should be deleted and it smacks of a bad faith attempt to bury British wrestling history (actually, looking at Sportsfan 1234's edit history, it looks like he/she is an Olympic Wrestling fan with an axe to grind about worked pro wrestling.) Romomusicfan ( talk) 01:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply

However, Delete NWA Scotland, British Flyweight, XWA British Heavyweight and All England titles - these four are latterday concoctions without the history and public awareness of the other titles. Undecided about the Commonwealth Junior Heavyweight title - depends on how much prestige it has gained in Japan. Romomusicfan ( talk) 08:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
What would you consider to constitute acceptable verifiable secondary coverage for pro wrestling titles, Eggishorn? The Wrestling Titles website seems to be considered a reliable and acceptable source for most pro wrestling titles pages. Maybe we should get some people in from Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling to give us their opinions on what constitutes an acceptable source? Romomusicfan ( talk) 14:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Having looked into Wrestling Titles, it uses mostly user-provided data with little (if any) evidence of editorial selectivity. In other words, it does not meet the qualifications of WP:RS. What is required is independent coverage in RS, and verifiability. No such sources have been adduced for these titles. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
So in that case, should an AfD be started about WCW World Heavyweight Championship and List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions? The only sources on either are (1) the same Wrestling Titles site (2) the website for WWE which now owns the defunct WCW brand and so is hardly independent? Come to that, looking at the WWE Championship and List of WWE Champions pages uses those same sources plus a host of unofficial fan-run news services that - to anyone unfamiliar with them - would appear to have Unreliable written all over them. And that's for just about the most Notable pro wrestling title on the planet!
Problem seems to me that you are going against editorial consensus about Wrestling-Titles.com not being a reliable source and there is a substantial body of Wikipedia editors who would disagree with you. It occurs to me that from your perspective there is a general issue with the sourcing on ALL pro wrestling pages - in which case perhaps you and Sportfan 1234 should take the issue up with WikiProject Professional Wrestling rather than trying to pick off random titles/sets of titles/companies? Romomusicfan ( talk) 18:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
P.S. Have posted about this AfD on the Wikiproject's talk page Romomusicfan ( talk) 14:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
A) Editorial consensus of a project has no standing to overturn notability standards. Project-based SNG's are intended to supplement, not replace GNG. B) I see no indication that mention on Wrestling-titles.com has been accepted as a SNG for wrestling promotions. C) The rest of your argument is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Excuse my ignorance but what is an "SNG"?  MPJ -DK  20:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I strongly question nominating all of these at the same time. Some of them might be notable and some others might not be. ★Trekker ( talk) 14:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
    Agree - and see my vote post above for my suggestions of which should really be kept and which are probably okay for the chop. Romomusicfan ( talk) 15:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose in its current format. A huge bulk AFD like this makes notabiliy discussions impossible to maintain. Some of these I agree are not notable and others clearly are and some are in between, having ONE discussion of all of these is not going to get a constructive result. Individual AFD or much smaller groups please.  MPJ -DK  16:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep those listed by Romomusicfan. Looking at the criteria for deletion it's not about the sources in the article only, but the coverage that exists in reliable sources. Looking at all the championships that Romomusicfan listed I can confirm that each of them has their own section in Royal Duncan and Gary Will's "Wrestling title histories: professional wrestling champions around the world from the 19th century to the present" book. Duncan and Will are cited over and over again as being subject matter experts in professional wrestling championships through the year 2000 and that book is considered a bible to wrestling historians. Yes, someone would have to find sources for the post-2000 title changes, but that's a matter of sourcing, not proving notability and thus not a deletion criteria.  MPJ -DK  21:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep those listed by Romomusicfan. Appeared weekly on national television. Why is there even a question about those? I think the nominator really need to step away from pro wrestling articles altogether. Their pattern of edits show a decided POV. oknazevad ( talk) 15:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Thanks for the votes of confidence for my choices! Perhaps what is really needed to silence the likes of Sportsfan 1234 and Eggishorn - since this is ostensibly the source of their gripe - is some sourcing to establish the titles' claims to notability (based on how the titles were defended and changed hands on a high profile national TV show - a far higher media profile than most US regions enjoyed at the time, in fact). The most obvious source that could be cited are the actual broadcasts as well as TVTimes listings for matches. Many of these matches and title changes are on Youtube which is now regarded as an acceptable source. ITV Wrestling is a very good site for listings and even has the relevant Youtube videos embedded - even if the site itself is not a satisfactory source, it should make a good directory for identifying citeable sources. It's even got a title changes page with televised changes in Bold. We don't need to cite very single change, just get a few examples for an Assertation of Notability in the opening paragraphs of each article.
Only problem areas are the British Open Tag Team title which was crated just after ITV coverage finished but nonetheless has changed hands on national TV (Superflies beating the Liverpool Lads on Robbie Brookside's Video Diary in 1993 on BBC2) and the Mid Heavyweight and Middleweight titles which stayed stuck around one wrestler each - the former around Mike Marino until his death in 1981, the latter around Brian Maxine until circa 2000 when TWA set up a new version. Still, both of them appeared with the belts on TV and may have made some succesful defences which may suffice. Romomusicfan ( talk) 17:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all. We can split hairs on some belts later, but this blanket "These all suck" nomination isn't helping anyone. For the record I also think out of the picked out list, the All England Championship is notable, as it was defended on FWA (which had a TV show) and ROH on an international cross promoted PPV. Crisis. E X E 19:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
I have to say that the old British wrestling TV slot on which Mountevans titles were defended (ITV on a Saturday afternoon just before the football results) was a rather higher profile piece of TV coverage than the FWA's show (local cable TV). It was also produced by ITV independently of the promoters whereas AFAIK FWA's show was simply filmed privately by the promotion in question and then sold on to the TV channel like old regional TV wrestling shows in the US in the 70s/80s. Romomusicfan ( talk) 08:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Well yes, we all get the point that on a visceral level, certainly for anyone British and above a certain age (or failing that, culturally informed about the Britain of that era) the notability of these titles is self-evident. What's really needed however is to not give the likes of Sportsfan and Eggishorn an excuse for labelling them as non notable. And that's where, moving forward, a proper referenced assertation of notability for each title article in its opening section will come in. Romomusicfan ( talk) 08:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply
(Oh and Haystacks did do a short spell in WCW near the end of his career as the Loch Ness Monster, but the less said about that, the better.) Romomusicfan ( talk) 09:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Ooh, I like "...the likes of...Eggishorn." It makes me feel like I'm part of some secret cabal. Wait a minute, did the secret cabal induct me without telling me? How would I know? In all seriousness, 2.24.71.95 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), while it certainly isn't contradictory to be both a wrestling fan (or fan of anything else) and a Wikipedian, looking at an AfD debate solely through a fan's eyes generally does not help anyone. While fans should be best-placed to indicate why a part of their field of interest meets notability guidelines, they need to convince other editors that the article subject does in fact meets those guidelines. I don't see "I remember it from Saturday afternoons" in any notability guideline, but that doesn't mean you can't improve the article. Since Romomusicfan mentioned this TV coverage (which would make them notable), there's been no references produced to indicate that this is true. Are there any old program listings that confirm World of Sport coverage? Any wrestling new sites? Anything? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply
>Since Romomusicfan mentioned this TV coverage (which would make them notable), there's been no references produced to indicate that this is true. Are there any old program listings that confirm World of Sport coverage?
Since you mention it, Eggishorn, I did in fact mention TVTimes which contained full listings of matches televised by ITV as well as many feature articles on wrestling. I also mentioned tertiarty source site ITV Wrestling which reproduces all of these listings and from which accurate citations of the original TVTimes listings can be extrapolated. (I also mentioned that a good many of the title match broadcasts are available for scrutiny on Youtube, which I gather is these days considered an acceptable Wiki source.)
Okay, you've indicated that a listings magazine would be an acceptable source; in that I can equip each page with a basic Assertion Of Notability relating to the ITV coverage, supported by examples of coverage (particularly title changes) in the form of TVTimes citations and/or the actual transmissions (supported by Youtube). If you will confirm that this is acceptable to you, then by all means I'll get to work on it. Romomusicfan ( talk) 08:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Further to the above, I have, by way of a specimen, kitted out the British Lightweight Championship article with an assertion of notability backed up with references to both TV broadcasts directly (two of these supplemented with Youtube video) and TVTimes listings. Romomusicfan ( talk) 09:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Added formatting to the references and also added them to the title changes in the table so they are sourced in both locations.  MPJ -DK  11:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply
OK, cheers, if Eggishorn is satisfied with this, I can start doing this for some of the other pages. Romomusicfan ( talk) 11:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Have done it for the British Welterweight Championship too. Romomusicfan ( talk) 13:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Yeah this is all true. I completely disapprove of mass AFD nominations like these but if the titles are indeed notable there should be work put into improving them by the people who think that they should stay. ★Trekker ( talk) 17:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have been doing some source work on the titles that were created prior to 2000 based on information in a book that is considered a reliable source. The book ("Wrestling Title histories") has a section on each of the championships. I am working on double checking the EUropean and the Commonwealth championships for corretness but they do have sections in the book as well.  MPJ -DK  03:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment British Empire/Commonwealth Heavyweight Championship is a bit of a mess, amalgamating various championships together without making it clear etc. so it' making souring problematic as it's bits and pieces from all over. It really needs to be reworked, which I'd be happy to do, although if it get deleted I guess it'd be wasted effort  MPJ -DK  21:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Which is wny I was rather hoping Eggishorn might come back and offer some feedback on the sourcing work I've done on the Brit LWt and Brit Wwt pages. As for the Commonwealth title, your best bet is to round up some articles on Count Bartelli that mention him as champion, for example this. Also check some of his TV matches from 1970s UK to see if commentator Kent Walton mentions the title. Romomusicfan ( talk) 08:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply
According to this he was acknowledged in TVTimes as Commonwealth champion for his two fall win over Pete Roberts in 1976 and it may even have been a title defence. Romomusicfan ( talk) 08:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Done! added these Romomusicfan ( talk) 23:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply
As I said elsewhere, this has gotten far too personalized. Wikipedia is neither a forum nor Facebook and I am not the arbiter of what is or is not acceptable. The admin who will close this is perfectly capable of deciding whether YouTube videos are sufficiently reliable evidence of notability for these wrestling titles. I have no interest in continuing to be the bête noire of British wrestling fandom. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Done - both of them! Romomusicfan ( talk) 23:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Also there are some lengthier wrestling features in TVTimes with material about championships. One 1968 essay focusses heavily on Billy Robinson in his role as incumbent double crown British/European Heavyweight Champion. A 1977 two part interview with recently retired George Kidd includes a table of British, European and World Champions - I believe there is a scan of this on a UK wrestling history site somewhere. (Intriguingly it recognises [WWWF World Champion Bruno Sammartino as World Heavyweight Champion - probably on account of his 1976 Shea Stadium defence against Stan Hansen being included as part of public closed circuit live screenings of the Ali vs Inoki boxer/wrestler match). There was also a lengthy pullout section in 1980 to mark 25 years of ITV coverage which may include championship details Romomusicfan ( talk) 10:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply
British Mid-Heavyweight Championship - Found the article and added linked reference - also found onscreen ITV acknowledgement of Mike Marino as champion. Added both references. Romomusicfan ( talk) 00:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply
European Heavyweight Championship Added reference to the same article plus reference to 1967 TV broadcast featuring Billy Robinson announced as incumbent double crown British/European champion.
Right then, that's a fully referenced Assertion of Notability for all the articles I voted to keep. Romomusicfan ( talk) 16:06, 25 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) 22:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Amaury Guichon

Amaury Guichon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per source searches, this subject does not appear to meet WP:BASIC. North America 1000 16:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:49, 21 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Chrissy Gephardt

Chrissy Gephardt (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete or merge with Dick Gephardt article -- thoroughly non-notable; does not derive notability by connection to notable relative (in this case her father). Quis separabit? 15:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:12, 15 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) 18:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:24, 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 speedy delete. Per WP:CHILD ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 15:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Dan Redwood

Dan Redwood (  | 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- WP:N person. f e minist 15:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. f e minist 15:40, 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 speedy delete. WP:G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. ( non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Taha - The Arabic Type Classification System

Taha - The Arabic Type Classification System (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An original academic article, which author indicated was previously presented as a conference paper (can be found on YouTube). Wikipedia is not a publisher of primary research and this also falls under WP:NOR.

PROD removed by page creator with comment in edit summary on personal talk page "I had removed any indication of publication or publisher." RA0808 talk contribs 13:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. RA0808 talk contribs 14:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:06, 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 Moved to Draft:J.LeGras. I've cleaned up the cross-namespace redirect. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC) reply

J.LeGras

J.LeGras (  | 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 musician; basically just a puff-piece. A WP:BEFORE shows absolutely zero signs of notability. Lacking any kind of coverage in reliable sources- let alone the requirement for depth and persistence of that coverage- shows that the article subject has no chance of passing WP:MUSICBIO or WP:ANYBIO. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 13:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • This young man is a beginning musician. Please check links below to see credit. He also has new music coming out soon.

https://jlegras.com Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LeGrasMusic/ Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6eQqdcOP-OeudduHN9EATA Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/j.legras/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeGrasMusic ( talk • contribs) 17:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC) — LeGrasMusic ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply

The Value Hill

The Value Hill (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot see any reason why this ghastly lump of marketing jargon is in any way notable TheLongTone ( talk) 13:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

I consider the Value Hill as a nice new way of looking at circular business models. Especially the methaphorically visualisation of the idea behind a circular economy, be it the prolongation of the use of products and materials in its highest value possible. Michiel100( talk) 16:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment: Hello, your comments above amount to " it's interesting" or " I like it". These in and of themselves are not valid reasons to keep an article. If you want this article to be kept, you need to demonstrate that it meets the notability criteria for inclusion. — KuyaBriBri Talk 19:09, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Sanjay Shah (businessman)

AfDs for this article:
Sanjay Shah (businessman) (  | 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 made up of non-notable accomplishments and an unproven fraud accusation that never went to trial. Jppcap ( talk) previously nominated it for AfD based on WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPCRIME, concluding in no consensus. SwisterTwister suggested we relist this, and I agree. The article's content simply does not meet WP:GNG. RenaultMurnles ( talk) 13:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Being a fugitive from the law and escaping to a country without an extradition treaty may perhaps postpone criminal trial in some jurisdictions - but this if at all increased the notability of the person. BLPCRIME really doesn't address fugitives. He is receiving on-going coverage in 2017 - [10] [11]. We are talking about a case exceeding a billion dollars - and a suspect who had some notability also beforehand, and in which very large (hundreds of millions) forfeiture has already been made. Icewhiz ( talk) 14:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:52, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

The Newfound Interest In Connecticut

The Newfound Interest In Connecticut (  | 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 about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, and nowhere close to enough reliable source coverage to support it. The strongest notability claim here is that they released one album before breaking up -- but if the existence of albums is going to be the main notability hook in and of itself, then NMUSIC requires two of them. And for referencing, what's been shown here is not substantive coverage about the band: there's one "13 bands you might have forgotten" listicle that features a mere blurb's worth of content about this band, and three reviews of the album of which two are on blogs rather than in media that would count for anything toward GNG. So the review in Exclaim! is really the only source that counts for anything at all toward NMUSIC #1 (which is the only criterion they actually have a chance at fulfilling), but one review isn't enough to pass NMUSIC #1 all by itself. Bearcat ( talk) 23:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:07, 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 redirect to Cambridge_Latin_Course#Book_I. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Cambridge Latin Course Book I

Cambridge Latin Course Book I (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:NBOOK. Also the four other books in the series do not have a page. Meatsgains ( talk) 13:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:47, 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 no consensus. Kurykh ( talk) 22:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Mariah Haberman

Mariah Haberman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Haberman was not even Miss Wisconsin, being that would not make her notable, but being a contender even less so. The sources on her show are either local chamber of commerce press releases, or the alumni magazine from her college, these are not what we look for as reliable sources. The Huff Po blog article on her and her Miss Wisconsin role is so non-reliable it says she was Miss Wisconsin, which is just not true. My search for additional sources came up with more blogs, her webpage, and maybe another local chamber of commerce press release, but nothing at all that was a reliable source. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Her notability is for being a television host, not for her involvement in the Miss Wisconsin pagent. The HuffPo must have made a typo since she won a local "Miss Wisconsin Central" pagent not the state. They missed the word Central. Google has many hits for her. There are hundreds of trivial mentions of her recording for the show at a locale and it's hard to wade through all of them to find the reliable ones about her. I don't see the HuffPo article as being unreliable just because they missed one word in it. I added another television station's article about her and much more content. She has written several newspaper articles for USA Today-Wisconsin such as [12]. Royal broil 03:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The HuffPo article is still from the blog section, which does not have editorial oversight and so cannot count as a reliable source, period. The UW Oshkosh source is a college paper source, not worthwhile. Another source is local coverage of her beauty pageant career. The one added source actually helps us see how the whole coverage of her in the article is over stated. She is a host of the mentioned show, not the host. Beyond this, this is a 4 paragraph article not about her, or giving significant coverage of her. It is a feel good promotional local radio/TV article about how the town is getting covered in the show, add in that this is Haberman's home town. A total of 0 or these sources meet the requirement of reliable, secondary 3rd party sources. Haberman writing in some way for USA today in no way adds towards her passing GNG. She is just totally non-notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:57, 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. Sort of WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Sam Lipman-Stern

Sam Lipman-Stern (  | 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 director lacking non-trivial support. "References" are single line mentions, unrelated, or fail to mention article subject. reddogsix ( talk) 04:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:56, 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 redirect to Battlestar Galactica. Apart from Piotrus and Jclemens, there are almost no serious arguments here, only "votes" or assertions of (non-)notability. Nonetheless, I must give Piotrus's view controlling weight because it is better supported by relevant policies and guidelines. His analysis of Jclemens's sources is not contested, including by Jclemens, leading me to conclude that it is common ground in this discussion that there is not the amount and quality of sources required for an article about this topic in the light of WP:GNG.  Sandstein  09:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Twelve Colonies

Twelve Colonies (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor fictional element with no real-world significance, all sources are limited to plot summaries and other in-universe mentions. For people who want to keep this, please remember that mentions in passing, particularly in plot summaries, are not sufficient. What we need (and I failed to find) are sources discussing real world significance of this fictional concept - inspirations, influences, etc. The fact that this concept is mentioned often in the BSG show(s) doesn't make it notable, we need more than that. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep The Verge discussing planetary dynamics, Deseret News on 12 colonies = 12 tribes, Cylons in America appears to cover many aspects of life in the 12 colonies, Journal Article that does society compsrisons. So, that's four, in-depth sources primarily or substantially about the location/society from which BSG originates. There are, needless to say, thousands of simpler mentions. Jclemens ( talk) 18:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
    • The fact that it exists on Google doesn't suffice. We need more than a passing mention. The Deseret article is not about 12 colonies, it's an obituary of the story's creator, which mentions a number of fictional elements, and dedicates a single sentence to this fictional element, through granted, it is not just a plot description, but talks about the inspiration for the term. The Verge just notes that the 12 colonies are an interesting solar system, it is pretty much a discussion of the plot. The third source seems to only discuss TC as a plot element, and as such is not particularly helpful - it reads like a Battlestar Galactica Encyclopedia (or wikia). The last source you found seems similar to the second one - I see few sentences about the 12C, but it is pretty much a plot summary. All in all, I can see those sources would allow for maybe a referenced paragraph or two, fine for merging into the BG article section on background/universe, but I am still not convinced about stand-alone notability. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply
      • But you didn't find them, and you didn't merge it yourself. You yet again started an AfD without taking responsibility for other options. Jclemens ( talk) 18:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply
        • I did found some of them, and I believed and still do that they don't suffice to make this topic have stand-alone notability. It is a plot element with barely few sentences of real-world significance. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC) reply
          • If you found them, then you should have put them in your nomination. Wikipedia works on consensus, not on adversarialism like a court of law does--or at least it would, if you and others would actually collaborate by putting forth evidence that undermines your position. Since I've never seen you do this, I find it strains AGF to believe that yes, you found everything I did, reviewed them all, didn't mention a single one of them, and decided to AfD this anyways. Or, as we say in medicine, if you don't document it, it didn't happen. Jclemens ( talk) 06:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC) reply
            • Accusing another editor of lying is not just straining AGF, it is pure NPA. I am not going to engage in discussing editor motivations. If you want to discuss sources, we can continue, otherwise I don't see the point in creating a battleground. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC) reply
              • I agree, accusing another editor of lying is bad form. However, I think you misunderstand what I meant by the medical adage "if you don't document it, it didn't happen". That's not an accusation that you didn't do what you said what you did (which, if you read through my comment again, is NOT what I said you didn't do), but a notation that undocumented effort is pointless on several levels. The most proximate one is that if you did work and didn't report it, you damage the team by forcing other people to re-do work that you did. Secondarily, the patient (article, in this case) can be harmed by the omission of details about what was done. In this case, that means an article has potential, and you state that you withheld evidence that supported that potential. Only in a distant third case does it even come down to believability, that without contemporaneous notes there's no evidence that what was said to have been done after the fact had actually been done. For all those three reasons, if you do work and don't document it, it's arguably worse than not doing the work in the first place. Likewise, for all the same reasons, doing research in an AfD and not reporting it is against consensus and collegiality, and would fit well alongside the other anti-consensus behaviors listed at WP:TE. Jclemens ( talk) 07:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and merge in material from other articles. Artw ( talk) 17:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 11:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Aoba47: The problem here is that an article collecting what would be in effect non-notable content does not gain notability itself. You cannot combine X-number of non-notable topics and argue that the resulting article is notable. We do tend to ignore this problem with lists, but the universe of articles are really "asking for it". No strong prejudice to such a merge, but then we may meet here again... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Piotrus: We would have to cross that bridge when we get there. There appears to be some coverage on the Battlestar Galactica universe as a whole so a list may be appropriate so we will just have to see how that shakes out in the future, depending on whether or not users will actually look for sources and add them into the article. Either way, I do not believe that the article up for discussion passes notability standards and should either be redirected to a new list/article on the universe or the already existing page on the television show. I have no preference for one or the other, and I will completely understand if the closer for this AfD decides to redirect to the show page (if redirect is decided of course) rather than create a somewhat dubious new list or article. I hope this response helps somewhat, and I greatly appreciate that you asked me directly. I have to be honest, and say that some of the behavior in this discussion was a little disappointing. Aoba47 ( talk) 14:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:56, 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 delete. Can't really merge into an article that doesn't exist. Kurykh ( talk) 22:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Bernardo Soto Series 1889

Bernardo Soto Series 1889 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contains too little information to be of any encyclopedic value. No references. No links. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Costa Rica-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 10:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:55, 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. Actually, consensus to weakly delete, but I can't click the button any less hard.  Sandstein  11:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Alladi–Grinstead constant

Alladi–Grinstead constant (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In the absence of a statement as to what the value of the constant is, this has no encyclopedic value. (Inserting the value of the constant, sourced to a reliable source, will justify keeping the article. Apparently nothing short of AFD can get the author to insert the value.)

Also, no explanation of notability, such as discussion by other mathematicians. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. This appears to be a legitimately studied concept in mathematics, but a very obscure one. The original Alladi–Grinstead paper from 1977 has been cited 7 times in Google scholar, but none of those citations appear to constitute non-trivial in-depth coverage of this concept. The MathWorld coverage is in-depth-enough to count towards WP:GNG, but it's only one source, and I don't think we should automatically cover things just because MathWorld does. I found the phrase "Alladi–Grinstead constant" outside MathWorld only in one other paper, a recent unpublished preprint [13], which uses the constant in a formula rather than studying it in-depth. The phrase "Alladi-Grinstead" appears nowhere in MathSciNet. So I don't think this meets the standard of having multiple in-depth studies by multiple independent groups of researchers. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep, or perhaps better yet, merge the main points into the "Number theory" section of Factorial. As David Eppstein said, this is a legitimate topic, but very obscure; I myself hadn't heard of it until I came across a stub and tried to rewrite it in a way that I could understand, using the MathWorld article as a guide. Judging from the coverage I could find (a couple discussions in books; a MathWorld article, and a brief discussion in another; some entries in the OEIS), I'd say that it deserves mention, but it doesn't necessarily stand alone as an article. The important thing is not so much the constant itself, but the fact that partitions of factorials into prime powers can be studied, and that people have to some extent done so. (For example, the section in Guy's book includes it as one result among a few on the topic of writing n! as the product of n large factors, due to Erdős and others.) The numerical value of the constant was given in the Definition section, and I've now also included it in the lede, with a pointer to the OEIS entry for its decimal expansion. The question is now about the "value" in a conceptual sense, i.e., how important is this material to number theory? I tend to feel that if MathWorld has an article on it, and a couple books have sections that focus on it, Wikipedia ought to include it somewhere, but a whole article devoted to it may be the wrong way to go. On that note, we should also consider the page Lueroth constant, which is entirely redundant with this page (it's just the c we define in this article). The MathWorld page for it is just a redirect to their page for the Alladi–Grinstead constant. So, if this article is kept, then Lueroth constant should redirect to it; if Alladi–Grinstead constant is deleted, so should Lueroth constant. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 10:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:55, 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. Kurykh ( talk) 02:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Aalathoorile Ethiri Vettam

Aalathoorile Ethiri Vettam (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Movie was supposed to start production in 2013. No evidence that the movie began production. Fails WP:NFF. Also fails WP:GNG as well as no reliable sources have covered the movie. Jupitus Smart 09:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:55, 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. Kurykh ( talk) 02:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Geranium Homes

Geranium Homes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No obvious notability, failing WP:GNG -- David Tornheim ( talk) 09:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - This is an established home builder in Ontario, Canada. A basic Google search indicates that the name of the company and what it is building is mentioned frequently in reliable sources (usually in real estate sections of Ontario newspapers). Company executives have also been quoted in the news a few times for their expert opinion in articles about new homes and so forth. Note that WP:OUTCOMES states that "companies reported as significant subjects of news coverage are usually sufficiently notable". That being said, this article barely passes WP:ORGCRITE, which requires more than a single secondary source to support notability. After much searching, I could locate just two reliable secondary sources which talk about this company ( [14] [15]), and both sources had already been added to the article. Magnolia677 ( talk) 10:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Magnolia677 The sources you added fail to meet the criteria for establishing notability. This article from The Star is an advertorial and follows the usual format. It fails WP:ORGIND. The next article, also from The Star fails for the same reasons. In any case, please note that two independent secondary sources must be from different publications in any event. -- HighKing ++ 17:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:55, 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) 22:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Minto Group

AfDs for this article:
Minto 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)

No obvious notability; fails WP:GNG. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 09:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:55, 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. Kurykh ( talk) 02:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Abeg

Abeg (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per WP:NOTADICTIONARY — Insert CleverPhrase Here 08:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 17:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:54, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac ( talk) 21:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Bewaqoofian

Bewaqoofian (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no ref.. not notable.. blocked editor... India1277 ( talk) 05:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:54, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Jared Keylon

Jared Keylon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient notability, may have qualified for NFR, but no evidence that he meets GNG per sourcing and lack of accomplishments Montanabw (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:54, 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. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh ( talk) 02:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Ronnie's Redneck Road Trip

Ronnie's Redneck Road Trip (  | 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 show doesn't look notable; two of the three sources are the listed website of the show. KSFT ( t| c) 03:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete - I could only find a few independent sources for this show, and only two different events were covered—a marriage, and the fact that a retired boxer is on it. Overall, I think that these sources are not enough for an article. Additionally, the article is slightly promotional. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 01:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:54, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac ( talk) 20:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply

The Chipmunks See Doctor Dolittle

The Chipmunks See Doctor Dolittle (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just like some of the other Chipmunk album articles i've listed, this one only contains a lead, infobox, and a "Track listing" section. There are no sources whatsoever and no template at the beginning saying how long the article has been unsourced for. DBZFan30 ( talk) 02:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 ( talk) 02:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 ( talk) 02:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 ( talk) 02:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 ( talk) 02:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:54, 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. Kurykh ( talk) 02:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Romain Masson

Romain Masson (  | 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:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 05:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:54, 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. Kurykh ( talk) 22:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply

BPM Energy

BPM Energy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources, fails gng Hawkeye75 (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:52, 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) 22:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Jeanne d'Arc Boulevard (Ottawa)

Jeanne d'Arc Boulevard (Ottawa) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local road with no sources beyond Google map link. WP:BEFORE finds no coverage in WP:RS. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:GEOROAD. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 12:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. All arterial roads are not automatically accepted as notable just because they exist, if the only source you can provide for them is a map and the only content you can create about them is a description of the road's physical route — to be considered notable, a road requires historical, political or social context, and reliable source coverage about the road to support that. Ottawa certainly has notable roads — Sussex Drive, Bank Street, Wellington Street, etc. — but there's no evidence being shown here that this would be one of them. And it's not that I lack personal familiarity with this road, either, as my aunt and uncle used to live in the exact neighbourhood in Orleans that Jeanne d'Arc was the exact turnoff from the Queensway to get to. Bearcat ( talk) 16:57, 21 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) 22:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

John Pounds Centre

John Pounds Centre (  | 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 center with most coverage only being local. Meatsgains ( talk) 12:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:39, 21 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) 02:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Ayrton Simmons

Ayrton Simmons (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another driver who fails WP:NMOTORSPORT and WP:GNG criteria. Corvus tristis ( talk) 12:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:41, 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) 22:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Alex Quinn (racing driver)

Alex Quinn (racing driver) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another driver who fails WP:NMOTORSPORT and WP:GNG criteria. Corvus tristis ( talk) 12:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:42, 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. Kurykh ( talk) 02:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Linus Lundqvist

Linus Lundqvist (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another driver who fails WP:NMOTORSPORT and WP:GNG criteria. Corvus tristis ( talk) 12:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:44, 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. The point raised by the keep-! voters that there are sources that address something called "National liberalism"; which is different from liberal nationalism or Civic nationalism--is a solid argument.The opposers have failed to convince the discussants to the contrary. ( non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 05:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

National liberalism

AfDs for this article:
National liberalism (  | 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 didn't improve since 2009, and I can't find any reliable source that say that National liberalism is diferent than Liberal nationalism ( Civic nationalism), the sources that I found use national liberalism with the same concept of liberal nationalism, it seems that is a synonymous, but I can be wrong. I think it should be redirect to Civic nationalism. For example, in the source " Verlag C.H. Beck, Germany from Napoléon to Bismarck, 1800-1866, Princeton University Press" is only used once and as a synonymous. The source that was added by E.M.Gregory, The Edinburgh Companion to Contemporary Liberalism, use the term national liberalism but its talking about the ideology liberal nationalism like Mark Evans says in the page 71. These seems to be a WP:SYNTHESIS and as the policy says, it combines "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." If you read the sources completely as a whole, none of these talk about an ideology. As is pointed bellow, a lot of unsourced material was tried to be push in the article. What is sourced are WP:PRIMARY comments of some researchers, and along with the use of the term by some parties the article try to pass it as an ideology. I suggest that the editors read and verify by themselves what the sources state. Rupert Loup ( talk) 11:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Asserting that an article has not improved substantively since 2009 is a very poor justification for starting an AfD on a 19th Century topic that closed as keep after a well-attended AfD in 2009. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • loup, it is bad form to expand the rationale for deletion in mid discussion. If you have something to add, please do it in a clearly separate edit. However, it is inept to take the edited collection of essays and, instead of citing the essay or page (273) that I cited, cite an entirely different essay on page 71, and accuse me of misrepresenting the passage I was citing. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
I didn't accused you of anything. I don't know what you're talking about. Rupert Loup ( talk) 22:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
I'm going to put here what I stated in the article's talk page: Some times the term is used as a synonymous of liberal nationalism, this is because the term is not a real ideology and we can give it the meaning that we want according with the circumstances.
In this source presented by Checco, Göran B. Nilsson talks about national liberalism and compare it with cosmopolitan liberalism, again like in some of the other sources, he is talking about the regional variant in contrast with the worldwide variant. There is no a cohesive ideology with particulars dogmas. There isn't also a cosmopolitan liberalism per se. There are just terms. There are terms that researchers use to label the parties and academics of the time. Like the sources state there were liberals and nationalist, or that is how they describe themselves. Some were nationalist, liberal, libertarians or socialist. If there were nationalist and liberals then they called them national liberals. As James Alfred Aho states, they had very different ideas. He use the term "mind set" to talk about the ideas that German liberals had at the time. It's logical that they need to use the term so in that way the reader could understand of what their talk about. Again, is not a distinct ideology is a term and the meaning vary with the circumstances in which is used as noted before. Sometimes is used to refer to the indigenous liberalism, other time as a synonymous, other to refer at the nationalism and liberalism of the time. No one agrees that it is an ideology or what it constitutes this ideology. There is no a scholarly consensus. And the term is used loosely. All the sources presented here use the term few times. Later use nationalism or liberalism. Is not a notable term by any means. Rupert Loup ( talk) 23:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. Clearly, "national liberalism" and "liberal nationalism" are different concepts, similarly to conservative liberalism and liberal conservatism: while the former are variants of liberalism, the latter are variants of nationalism. As I wrote eight years ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National liberalism (the result of the discussion was keep, after seven users opposed the deletion with quite good arguments and only who favoured it), "en.Wiki has plenty of articles about sub-ideologies (see Category:Political ideologies) and many branches of liberalism (see Category:Liberalism)" and "national liberalism is a historical brand of liberalism typical of some German-speaking countries, but the term has been used also recently. The subject clearly deserves an article in en.Wiki, but, while the current one already includes good sources, it could be great improved. Please let's not delete it. -- Checco ( talk) 11:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Do you have a source for that? Rupert Loup ( talk) 11:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
All that I wrote is quite self-evident. And it should also be noted that other 22 Wikis have articles on the subject. -- Checco ( talk) 06:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
No, it's not, without sources is original research and doesn't have place in Wikipedia. Rupert Loup ( talk) 07:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The article can (and should) be improved and expanded upon, of course, but it needs to continue to exist to do so. Liberal nationalism is a separate, different concept to national liberalism (as it national conservatism, may I add) and it would be misleading to conflate the two under the same article.-- Autospark ( talk) 13:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Again, do you have a source for that? I'm genuinely asking. Rupert Loup ( talk) 18:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
In what way? Did they say what national liberalism is and how is diferent of liberal nationalism? The first source only mention it three times and says that were used as synonymous of german nationalism. But didn't explain what it is or what is the diference with liberal nationalism. The second source didn't mention national liberalism at all. Rupert Loup ( talk) 18:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Loup, you cannot claim that the source (Dalton on JSTOR) are inadequate, then, when I begin adding material form Dalton to the page, complain in your edits that you have no access to it because of a paywall. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
I didn't claim nothing about Dalton, I was talking about Heinrich H. Maure and Peter Uwe Hohendahl. That are the sources that shows in the search. And you mean Dutton. [16] That talks about the Liberal Nationals in the preview. Also what you are adding says that is a term. Not a distinct ideology. Rupert Loup ( talk) 20:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • My apology, the first 2 items on my JSTOR search were Dalton (I have not read that article yet, it's about the Natinoal Liberals in Walse, U.K.) and Kurunmaki, Jussi. (“On the Difficulty of Being a National Liberal in Nineteenth-Century Finland.” Contributions to the History of Concepts, vol. 8, no. 2, 2013, pp. 83–95., www.jstor.org/stable/43610946.) I was referring to Kirumaki. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Hohendahl says," This very aim-to exploit Schiller's dramas for national liberalism brought the conservatives into the picture." IOW German liberals claimed Schiller as one of their own. By "national liberalism" he means "German liberalism" and elsewhere in the text refers to them as liberals without qualification. TFD ( talk) 00:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
TFD, that is from the JSTOR search? I searched for national liberalism here and nothing shows. Am I doing something wrong? Rupert Loup ( talk) 21:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Rupert Loup, sorry not to answer earlier. The article is "The Literary Canon of the Nachmärz" and your link shows it. But you can click on the link to JSTOR at the top of this page. The article is open access. TFD ( talk) 07:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC) reply
TFD, found it. It's mention once. Yes I concur, in the books that I read, the term "national" it's just used to refer the autochthonous liberalism of a country or as a synonymous of liberal nationalism. Not as a particular ideology. If you read the sources of the article, every party has a diferent way of see "national liberalism". It's not an ideology with common caracteristics. Like in this used source. Rupert Loup ( talk) 08:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Other example here, that is used to source the content "Gordon Smith understands national liberalism as a political concept that lost popularity when the success of nationalist movements in creating nation states rendered it no longer necessary to specify that a liberal ideal, party or politician was "national."", Emil J. Kirchner only use the term 3 times, and not to define it as "political concept". Then just use liberalism or nationalism. There is no sings of a specific ideology. And doesn't explain what are the ideals or philosophy of this so-called ideology. He use it to refer to the specific liberalism of Switzerland. In fact he states that "some are national based, other are regional parties. Rupert Loup ( talk) 12:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Loup, I now see that earlier in the AfD process you deleted a substantial amount of WP:RS WP:SIGCOV from the article. and repeated the action after being reverted. I don't know what game you're playing here, but please cut it out. Furthermore, sources like books and academic journals do not require verification simply because you cannot access them. They are valid sources even if a particular scholarly source is not public access. Other example is here that is used to source the content "Gordon Smith understands national liberalism as a political concept that lost popularity when the success of nationalist movements in creating nation states rendered it no longer necessary to specify that a liberal ideal, party or politician was "national."", Emil J. Kirchner only use the term 3 times, and not to define it as "political concept" E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Because don't mention national liberalism. I checked them. And I can't check the sources that you added, that's why I'm asking for verifications. Who says that they not requiere verification? can you give me the policy that says that? E.M.Gregory, please see WP:VERIFY. Rupert Loup ( talk) 21:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • It is, however, irregular to mass-delete sources that look reliable during an AfD. Adding small corrections to a deletion that you have just made so that it cannot be reverted and taken to talk will inevitably make it appear that you have a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. I advise you to revert all of the many the deletions you have made during this AfD, then justify each on the talk page so that other editors can assess them and come to a consensus about what material should be kept in the article. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • As per WP:AGF, we assume that an article adding a source to a page has verified it unless we carefully read the source and specify (in a comment, or on the talk page) exactly why that editor was mistaken. You can demonstrate good faith by restoring the citation to a university press book that you just deleted along with all of the other reliably sourced material that you have improperly deleted from this article. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
WP:NOTAFORUM, this is not the correct place to disscuss that. Also I alredy told you that I won't going to re add sources that doesn't talk about national liberalism or in this case are incoplete and fail verification. You used a non-english source that doesn't have pages to cite a content. Can you quote it and give me a page? Checco can you point where in the page given in the sources that I deleted it talk about national liberalism? because Checco said that indeed mentioned it. I don't assume bad faith, I stick to the facts. Rupert Loup ( talk) 02:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
I fear you are actually assuming bad faith, when removing parts of the article as well as sources which have been there for years (and were not included by me, but by other users, by the way). There is an ongoing discussion and I would wait for its end before editing the article: while there have been definitely improvements (thanks especially to User:E.M.Gregory), some removed parts should be re-included. That is what I am going to do. Otherwise, people can say that there is "no definition" in the article (see below). -- Checco ( talk) 06:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Ps: I answered to your message in my talk page at Talk:National liberalism. There is no need of using talk pages, while we are already discussing.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm asking for sources. The article has being tagged since 2012. I removed the unsourced material citing WP:OR and you deliberately re added it without citations. And stated that the sources mention national liberalism, which they not. Thats vandalism and you are doing it again. Rupert Loup ( talk) 07:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
I think that what you are doing is vandalism and that you are totally not interested in consensus. However, this discussion is on the notability of "national liberalism": the article's content can be discussed at Talk:National liberalism. -- Checco ( talk) 07:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or merge to National Liberal Party (Germany). As I pointed out at the last AfD, there is no ideology called "national liberalism" and no definition is given in the article. The term normally refers to the National Liberal Party (Germany), which called itself that because it was a liberal party organized on a natioal level. See for example the first hit on Google books, The Splintered Party: National Liberalism in Hessen and the Reich, 1867-1918: "The National Liberal Party...was one of the two genuinely national parties of its day." (p. 1) [17] Most of the article is sourced to an article called, “On the Difficulty of Being a National Liberal in Nineteenth-Century Finland.” Other authors do not use that term, see for example The Evolution of Electoral and Party Systems in the Nordic Countries The term is not used in the book. TFD ( talk) 00:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
*That redirect won't work, not least because this term does not "normally" refer to any single party. Many countries have had important national liberal parties. Including many called National Liberal Party. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note that this is a concept that was at the height of its popularity in the 1800s, and that like Wikipedia itself google searches have a presentism problem, gSearches, including gBooks searches, bring recent sources to the top, making the wider use of the term in term a century ago difficult for editors running searches to perceive. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
There are lots of out of copyright books from the 19th century and early 20the century texts available in full on Google Books and other sites. See Guido De Ruggiero's History of European Liberalism] (1927), which is still considered a leading text. It does not mention national liberalism. Lots of books by Austrian School liberals, such as Carl Menger (1840-1921), Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek are also available. Since the Wikipedia article says that national liberalism was the major liberal ideology in Austria, they should have mentioned it. Nothing in Mises' Liberalism (1927) or the other writers. The works of Karl Marx (1818-1883) are also available on line. He was German and wrote about the National Liberal Party and liberalism, but did not identify a national liberal ideology. No mention either in Left Liberals, the State, and Popular Politics in Wilhelmine Germany, The Ashgate Research Companion to Imperial Germany or Anthony Arblaster's The Rise and Decline of Western Liberalism (1986) which is considered the most important history of liberalism since De Ruggiero.
In any case, lack of sources necessary to write an informative article is a reason not to have an article. None have been found in the last 8 years. Maybe at some point sources will become available and someone can write the article again. But in the meantime, it is uninformative and useless.
TFD ( talk) 16:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • WP:HEYMANN improvements by USER:Checco answers all objections raised by Nom and by other editors. I strongly suggest that the next experienced editor coming to this page close the discussion on the strength of the HEYMANN preventing Nom from yet another round of WP:DISRUPTive deletions that serve only as the kind of annoyance that drives good editors away. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
    • I am still not seeing a topic, just an observation that there are unrelated parties called " National Liberal." I would expect to see at least one source that defined national liberalism and explained the connection of national liberals in the various countries in the article. TFD ( talk) 17:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
I concur with TFD, there just a series of parties that use the term. And also a lot of unsourced material was added. Now it's a WP:SYNTHESIS, using the primary comments of some researchers and the term use by some parties to pass it as an ideology. WP:HEY is an essay, not a policy. Rupert Loup ( talk) 20:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Alright, so different writers define liberalism and socialism differently, although in each case political scientists have been able to identify the core elements in common. Among the core elements of liberalism is the "pursuit individual/economic freedom and national sovereignty," which is the definition provided for national liberalism. There are no liberals who oppose freedom or national sovereignty. Could you please provide one book or even one article about the concept of "national liberalism." If you cannot, then it fails "Notability" It has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources." ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention." TFD ( talk) 22:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Repeating my request that the next editor coming to this page close this discussion as keep. Nom, who had been making repeated mass deletions of text has been blocked for 24-hours. It is my hope that with the AfD closed it will be possible to resolve any remaining issues at talk, as suggested at AN/I. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC) reply
I don't know what you are talking about. The article still is a WP:SYNTHESIS, and the sources state that as I said. Nothing has changed. Rupert Loup ( talk) 16:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • No, it's not. The article, and the additions under discussion on the talk page, show that there is scholarly discussion of an ideology of "national liberalism," and that a series of major political parties formed around this ideology in the 19th century. This is not to say that the article is perfect, only that the topic is notable. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply
In the talk page no one of the sources talk about an ideology, the parties had its respective different ideologies that go from nationalism, liberalism and socialism, they use the term to describe themselves but its ideologies had nothing in common in one another. There is not a cohesive ideology in any of the sources. Also, the comments of the researchers on the subject are primary, again you are doing a WP:SYNTHESIS. Rupert Loup ( talk) 20:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Loup, Please do not make major changes to a comment that you make earlier in the discussion, as you have just done. Doing this after the discussion has moved on is regarded as a disruption of the process. Reason, is, once the discussion moves on, changes to a comment can give a misleading impression about the comments other editors were responding to. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Yes, this behaviour is quite exacerbating. Additionally, this is a discussion on the notability of the subject "national liberalism", everything else has to be discussed in the article's talk page. I also think that this discussion could be closed as keep, per the reasons mentioned by E.M.Gregory above. -- Checco ( talk) 07:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply
I don't know what are you talking about, there is no policy or guide that says that I can't do that. I didn't modify my previous comment. It's the reason that I state for the AfD. Rupert Loup ( talk) 20:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Modifications that were added after discussion had moved on here: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. Out of time for now, although I have only gone through part of this AfD. There may well be more examples. Loup, the point is that changing a comment or a Nom after other editors have responded confounds the possibility of reasoned discussion, which is our rules forbid it. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: In response to the AN/I phrase or that an editor would close the AfD (this dispute regards political ideal popular in the 1800s that was kept after a previous AfD discussion.), this debate cannot be ( non-admin closure) as SNOW KEEP because of the significant delete !votes. It cannot be closed as no consensus because it is only two days old and hasn't attracted enough attention, so it will probably have to be relisted. Thanks, d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 12:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I perceive a moment, or, rather, a series of moments in many central European countries in the 19th century when national liberalism was an ideology; I source such a moment in Germany just before unification above. I see "national liberalism" as a significant 19th concept, a view validated by the selection of the term as the name of a series of major political parties. In addition, "national liberalism" has been have recurred to by significant contemporary figures, and discussed extensively in the writings as Prime Minister József Antall. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 09:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
See the talk page of the article. National liberalism is a synonymous of liberal nationalism. Is used in that way in most of the sources. József Antall is described as liberal nationalist [29]. There are various sources that describe clearly what liberal nationalism is, like this example, and there is none that explain in what consist national liberalism. Rupert Loup ( talk) 13:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
WP:TENDENTIOUS is an essay. This is a discution page. I'm who is being accused of bad faith for presenting arguments. The first AfD is irrelevant to this. I stated in the talk page that the sources use the term as a synonymous of Liberal nationalism with examples. Also it was discussed how all the sources doesn't state what national liberalism is or what advocate. Please, care to elaborate why this article should be a keep. What is National liberalism and how is notable to have an article? I already state my arguments. I'm curious of what are yours. Rupert Loup ( talk) 20:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and note that the OP, having failed to get his way, is now retired. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The sources I've looked at (from the article) do appear to be addressing something called "National liberalism", and it does appear to be a different thing to what is described by the sources at Civic nationalism. And the OP's statement "I can't find any reliable source that say that National liberalism is diferent than Liberal nationalism (Civic nationalism), the sources that I found use national liberalism with the same concept of liberal nationalism, it seems that is a synonymous, but I can be wrong" appears to be OR - essentially "They seem the same to me, and we don't have a source explicitly saying they're different". By that reasoning, I doubt we have a source that explicitly says blue whales aren't cabbages, but we wouldn't direct one to the other on that basis - to assume two things are synonymous, we'd need sources that explicitly say they're the same, not an absence of sources that say they're different. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 13:11, 22 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) 02:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Uhuru (wholefoods shop)

Uhuru (wholefoods shop) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of sustained notability. CSD WP:A7 declined because previous version of article contains a book source, so significance might exist. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 08:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

I'll add at least one more reference - possibly two soon - as far as I am aware the shop still exists and it was a significant player in the early days of the wholefoods / what came to be Fairtrade movements. Johnrcrellin ( talk) 07:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC) reply

May not be notable as an establishment now but surely merits an entry for its place in the history of the wholefoods / fairtrade movement? Johnrcrellin ( talk) 21:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:34, 21 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 List of Star Wars characters#E. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Emperor's Royal Guard

Emperor's Royal Guard (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable fictional entity; all sources present and that I can find are in-universe plot summaries or merchandise (action figure/etc.) description. I would suggest a merge but I cannot think of a valid target, plus there is really nothing to say - Palpatine article may mention he has special guards, but I don't see a reason we should describe them in more detail anywhere (of course, no prejudice to anyone who figures out where to merge this and does so). But as a stand-alone article, I don't think it is encyclopedic. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect: Since I am on my iPad more so than a computer, it gets a little tough to edit even if I do have proof when it comes to finding sources. That's what happened then. I am struggling just typing already. I came across list articles at the time ranking them but I am not sure I could still find them though. That was a while back! Also when I did get more active it was in proving notability in different articles like here, here and here. Meanwhile I am still more speculative that the first aliens depicted don't have their own articles than these cameoed characters that were much cooler in Legends. Anyways nice savage Ghostbusters reference, Eemiv. lol Jhenderson 777 21:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

South Essex Rapid Transit

South Essex Rapid Transit (  | 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:GNG. proposed project that never happened. and the coverage is very limited to justify an article. LibStar ( talk) 07:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I've found this (written or updated 27 Jul 2016) and this (written or updated 28 Jan 2015) which seems to indicate it's still going ahead / continuing however as noted above there's barely any sources and information to justify an article, Obviously I found a few sources ranging from 2009-2011 saying it's going ahead however they're kinda useless as nearly 10 years on no one seems to know anything, In short even if it isn't going ahead it's still non notable and there's no recent sources to justify an article. – Davey2010 Talk 13:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:53, 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) 22:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Country Game

Country Game (  | 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 notable ( WP:N). This game as a named event has received negligible non-routine coverage ( WP:ROUTINE), and this particular piece of routine coverage [30] makes clear that the game is not even considered to be an annual event – just a two-time ad hoc event that might one day become annual ( WP:CRYSTAL). Aspirex ( talk) 07:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:29, 21 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. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 16:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Mia Malkova

AfDs for this article:
Mia Malkova (  | 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 subject of this article "may" not meet the guidelines for notability. Scenicview1 ( talk) 19:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1 reply

I'm not an expert in articles of deletion but it appears this article was under consideration, at one point in the past. I'm submitting this again under 2nd nomination. Since there are clearly not many reliable sources and only one major award given. The AVN, XRCO, and XBIZ awards were not one of the major categories of awards given. Only one separte award from AVN meets the standard of a major award, which was the Best New Starlet award. For Reference number 4, there is no clickable entry to verify this reference. Reference 2 and 5 is debatable as to whether a Twistys award or mention of an award, is worthy of inclusion. Reference 6 is clearly written from a blog, not as reliable as the Adult DVD Talk interview. [1] The blog indicated in Reference 6 looks like a minor, opinionated and unverified source clearly from a blog, as stated. Written in extremely simplified terms, with photographs attached, from a blog that usually does not write about adult performers. In fact, if you read the article up to near the end, it is jokingly insinuated that it looks like a porn production. The photographs could be for a video, for all we know. There is also no certificate of authenticity to verify what was going on in the photographs. Just someone who writes a blog that does not usually involve adult performers. It also lists a twitter account as proof, but who is to know whether that is real. It may have been created just for this blog site. [2] The name mentioned as her friend, under the career section, is also unverified. Finally, when you click on Reference 8, you are lead to an error page, with no verifiable information provided. I'm a fan of Mia Malkova, but seriously wonder if one major AVN Award under the Best New Starlet award category, deserves an article or profile on wikipedia. There is also a lack of personal information in regard to her profile. Understandable, perhaps, given the industry she is in. Mentioning a Twisty award of the month or Twisty award of the year, is questionable since this is not a major award or may be debatable as such. Whether it deserves even a mention in her article page, with only one verifiable reliable source, is also questionable at best. I do not want a deletion, but if someone may provide more information, references, etc. and more awards, rather than just one major award, then please add that information. Otherwise, consideration for deletion may be possible. This article does not meet established guidelines of WP:PORNBIO If it does meet it, then it is meeting only one established guideline. Scenicview1 ( talk) 19:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1 reply

References

  1. ^ Jack, Captain. "Pornstar Interviews by Captain Jack". Adult DVD Talk.
  2. ^ Covucci, David. "People Who Do It on Camera For Money Can Find Love". Bro Blog.
  • Correction. It appears to meet at least one established guideline or possibly two for WP:PORNBIO. Under the category of the AVN award for Best New Starlet and XBIZ award for Best Actress in a Feature Release production.

We may still leave this open to debate. I still think someone or people involved with putting up her profile on wikipedia, need to find better References or ones that are more legitimate, considering the number of performances she has done. It shouldn't be hard to find interviews, news stories, biographies, topics, etc., related to her online, unless she kept things mostly private. At least, if possible, replace Reference 8 which leads to an error page. I have no disagreement if the decision is made to keep her profile or article, considering that it appears she has won at least two Awards, one from AVN and one from XBIX, in different recognized categories. Scenicview1 ( talk) 21:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1 reply


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply


  • Neutral Keep - at the moment I reserve judgement but will continue to monitor and research the topic. Given the industry in which she is involved and it's status in society, it may be hard to come by reliable third party references due to the aversion to the subject matter by most mainstream publications. I initially clicked on this AfD discussion because the name itself was immediately familiar to me despite my initial inability to place it. It may be difficult to assess notability on this particular individual and some thought should be given towards assessing how she and similar persons in this field are vetted and also how notability for such persons has been established in the past. unak 1978 20:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Upon further perusal, apparently my particular concerns are not unfounded, nor has it not been discussed before. Criteria for notability in this particular field should follow WP:PORNBIO. I will look into the discussion and this criteria in order to offer a more informed opinion. unak 1978 20:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Per the discussion and consensus from those on the WikiProject Pornography, there seems to be ample consensus that singular award wins were enough to establish notability. In addition, the AVN and XRCO awards are specifically mentioned as being highly regarded enough to establish notability in this field. She's won two AVN awards and one XRCO, albeit all in the same calendar year, that's a separate discussion since they have not determined longevity to be a determinant. Based specifically on the accepted guidelines, as well as the supported references documenting those awards, I'm comfortable with keeping this article. unak 1978 20:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
This argument is seriously misinformed. The cited discussion page, [[ Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors), has been moribund for a decade, because the separate SNG has been subsumed into the broader guideline for people. The issues the poster describes as "not discussed before" have been discussed at length and resolved at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). In particular, the idea "that singular award wins were enough to establish notability" is blied by repeated discussions, including the most recent one still visible on that talk page. The Wikiproject has no authority to set standards in that area, and the broader community has settled, by strong and repeated consensus, on stricter standards. Unak 78, I hope you will take the time to review the current and recent discussions on the general subject, including some formal RfCs, and recognize the error in your argument. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 21:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment - Please modify your tone. The opening in particular. If you want to discuss my opinion with me, you can do so in a respectful manner and I'd be happy to revisit it. However I choose not to become engaged in a snark contest. If you take issue with this, then contact an administrator regarding my current stance and I will answer for this. Otherwise you're welcome restate your issue with my opinion in a more civil manner or debate it with one of the other editors here. I will not respond again to another comment with a similarly worded header. Thank you. unak 1978 22:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply
No. There is nothing uncivil about pointing out that your argument ignores the current consensus about application of the pertinent SNG. What is uncivil is your posturing that pointing out gross errors in your argument is disrespectful. You show no respect for other editors when you refuse to respond to well-earned criticism. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 02:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I agree with your statement completely, that due to the nature of the business, there may increasingly be issues of privacy involved. This in turn leads to the lack of specific facts and data, other than major and acclaimed Awards being given. I mentioned this in regard to another debate about another adult performer on wikipedia. Although that performer had done a number of different online interviews with various adult internet sites and even on youtube. If a performer has a residence in a certain city and enjoys playing at a local tennis court for instance, and that is discussed in a biography or interview, for example, that may lead to invasion of privacy or unwanted knowledge of that particular performer. Even if the residence is known but not the specific tennis court. Nowadays, the performer unfortunately may leave out those specific details and stick with more topics of her profession. Due to the explicit nature discussed, it would also not necessarily be included in a very open profile on wikipedia as well. Since the awards are held yearly, those who acquire the top award from each major adult show, should probably deserve a mention and one or two photographs of the performer on the profile or article on this site. Also given that minor mainstream television or movie actresses and actors are given more recognition, in some cases starring in a minor role, on this site as well, it would only be fair to just include the few Award winners in the adult industry each year, who deserve being recognized. Even in cases where they only won one major Award from a recognized Adult Award show. Scenicview1 ( talk) 22:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1 reply
    • Comment - Yes, this particular set of SNG guidelines are pretty broad by Wikipedia standards and the parties responsible for establishing consensus on the subject could do well to establish further guidelines. However there is no simple solution for an industry that is, by nature, as selectively publicized as this one is. More work should be done on the entire issue, however I felt it necessary to take into account how issues of privacy affect how members of the industry may aspire to control just how much content exists about them in the media. Even some of the more notable members do not always provide accurate personal information and take steps to ensure that such is not available anywhere online where it might easily be accessed. Even a Wikipedia article such as this might find itself at odds with the very performer that it pertains to for being too accurate with certain information depending on how and where it was obtained. unak 1978 18:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. This is another case where the performer has won a significant award but the sources are low quality. This is a technical PORNBIO pass with AVN Best New Starlet and the XBiz Best Actress (feature) wins. However, there is nothing near significant coverage by independent reliable sources here. The porn trade press coverage appears to be the usual republished press releases. No legitimate claim of passing WP:BASIC. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 03:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- none of the keep voters have shown how this subject meets GNG. A technical SNG pass is not a pass for a content-free article. Redirect to the AVN Awards page then. For comparison, please see:
K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment - Please elaborate. Is the issue the amount of content/direct references in this article or how notability is established by the author per WP:PORNBIO? The issues that this particular topic carries seems to require a nuanced approach, but I would prefer to be better informed if possible. You could be helpful in that regard. unak 1978 23:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 05:25, 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) 22:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Arif Mahmud Kisana

Arif Mahmud Kisana (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

an autobio by a SPA. no coverage in RS. he may have authored a few books but none is notable. cited sources are self published. Saqib ( talk) 05:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:27, 21 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. As a group, for now. Individual films can be renominated.  Sandstein  14:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Violent Shit

Violent Shit (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Violent Shit II: Mother Hold My Hand (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Violent Shit III (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nikos the Impaler (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Karl the Butcher vs. Axe (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These all seem to fail WP:NFILM. Horrornews.net and Birth Movies Death do not appear to be WP:RS. Fangoria is reliable, but the source covers only an in-name-only sequel.

The only sources for the second movie also appear to be self published. The third film, along with Nikos the Impaler and Karl the Butcher vs. Axe, have no other sources besides IMDb, and I could find no other sourcing whatsoever for any of them.

Delete all for failing the film notabilities. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 22:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 03:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:52, 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. Kurykh ( talk) 02:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Genius Nochang

Genius Nochang (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No text and no indication of musical notability. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:51, 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. czar 01:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Raphaël Colantonio

Raphaël Colantonio (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While some of his games are notable, there is no independent coverage of the person to establish biographic notability. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge to Arkane Studios When this article was created (linked to from another article I was working on) I added four references I had used elsewhere that were interviews and discussions with Colantonio about him and his background in making Arkane. I think there's enough in these to expand to a full article, but I also see that most of his notability is tied to Arkane (he worked elsewhere before but that's more a side bit relative to his time with Arkane), so merging with redirection to Arkane Studios also works. -- MASEM ( t) 14:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – does not appear to independently meet the relevant notability criteria. Lacking in-depth coverage in a breadth of reliable secondary sources. Citobun ( talk) 14:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MASEM ( t) 14:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 17:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
C'mon @ Hahnchen, I don't have to cite WP:OTHERSTUFF, do I? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply
I'm not arguing that this should be kept because "other stuff" exists. I argued it should be kept on it's own merits, and then I suggested other things you should delete. - hahnch e n 11:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply
You're voting keep, saying it has enough sources, but at the same time suggesting that we delete articles about other video game designers. You don't have to do that last part. I could be wrong, but to me, that reads like WP:WHATABOUTX. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Undoubtedly notable, how? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Involved is significant video games. Plenty of sources in a quick BEFORE - both news and books. Many are passing, yes, but there are enough hits it is hard to filter out the passing ones. Icewhiz ( talk) 20:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Icewhiz That Colantonio is involved with making significant video games does not make him notable necessarily, per WP:INHERIT. The subject of the article has to be notable by itself. You're saying "it's hard to filter out the passing ones", how so? Have you checked the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine? Type in "raphaël colantonio" and you'll get some results. For me, in my opinion, an interview with him about his work, him being mentioned in the context of his works or about the studio he works at is not significant coverage about the person Colantionio. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply
I see lots of items also in the custom google search you linked (which I admit I haven't tried before). Hard to filter out in the sense that when you have a large bunch of passing mentions (which is to a certain extent an indication of notability) - going over them takes time. But here are a few non-passing items that aren't in the article: [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]. If he has an independent professional persona from the firm(s) he's involved with - meeting GNG - that's OK. You don't have to have coverage of his favorite color or kids (or lack thereof). Icewhiz ( talk) 08:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply
As well as 3 pages full of google-books results - [37] - Most of them without preview access (even snippet) unfortunately - too new. Icewhiz ( talk) 08:30, 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 speedy deleted. by User:DGG. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Autocracy under Donald Trump

Autocracy under Donald Trump (  | 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 article blatantly violates NPOV and BLP. Clearly, this article was written by someone who greatly dislikes President Donald Trump and was meant to defame him. SMP0328. ( talk) 04:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 04:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 04:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete "The United States was downgraded from full democracy to flawed democracy." I didn't realize that there was an official rating of countries' democracy levels, and one run by US Today no less. None of the three references use the term autocracy, autocrat, autocratic or any other such term. It appears that the creator of the article has decided Trump has been behaving autocratically and thus we need said article. Meters ( talk) 04:47, 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) 22:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Ryder Skye

Ryder Skye (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unremarkable adult actress. Significant RS coverage not found. Article cited to interviews, online directories, industry PR materials, personal web site and other unsuitable sources.

Award listed (Best Cumback) is not significant; the rest are nominations. Article delves into trivial and personal details such as the subject's breast augmentation surgery and other similar aspect's of the subject's biography. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:58, 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) 22:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Ali Zaidi (online entrepreneur)

Ali Zaidi (online entrepreneur) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobio of non-notable blogger. Fails WP:CREATIVE, WP:GNG, no significant coverage online from WP:RS apart from a 2009 profile in local paper Daily Herald (Arlington Heights) from when he was a teenager. Uncle Roy ( talk) 03:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy ( talk) 03:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy ( talk) 03:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy ( talk) 03:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy ( talk) 03:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:39, 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 Procedural close – article already WP:CSD'ed by Woody as per WP:A7. ( non-admin closure) -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 18:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Andrew Bernie Wilson

Andrew Bernie Wilson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per the PROD by JamesG5: "Article about a person who does not appear to meet WP:GNG, part of a flurry of articles created by the same editor to promote a studio that's trying to be successful at animation. All related articles have been PRODed, speedied, or are at AfD. This doesn't appear Wikipedia ready".

PROD removed by article creator. Sky Warrior 02:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sky Warrior 02:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Sky Warrior 02:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
NOTE - After doing a bit more digging here and at the other article WP:Articles for deletion/Clyde and Willis (animated series) this is <<redacted>> using a game platform to make YouTube videos. All the references given for "deals" to buy the show do not check out. Andrew's YouTube has just over 100 subscribers and barely 2000 views. The new editor below suggesting "keep" shows by his edits he's another Roblox user in the friends group. Contrary to claims made that Andrew is "infamous" or that "He's famous. Everyone is." he does not appear to meet WP:GNG. JamesG5 ( talk) 15:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
NOTE The above editor campaigning for a delete is making false claims. He suggests that I know andrew which I do not. He is assuming that by the age of the person that the article is about that he is not notable. This is called age discrimination. Also they are participating in subscribercount discrimination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aca rblx ( talk • contribs) 17:25, 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 speedy Delete. Per WP:A10, G12 by User:J.smith (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Sulforaphane and Its Effects on Cancer, Mortality, Aging, Brain and Behavior, Heart Disease & More

Sulforaphane and Its Effects on Cancer, Mortality, Aging, Brain and Behavior, Heart Disease & More (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be copied and pasted from somewhere, if not original research, and seems to cover many topics. Duplication of article content located at User:AboutHalfFull. Home Lander ( talk) 00:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Not all of it is COPYVIO, as far as I can tell, but enough of it that at a minimum it needs to be blanked. (Example: the entire section on triglycerides is verbatim from the Mayo Clinic web site.) It is unclear to me why we need an article on the health effects of this drug independent of the article we already have on the drug itself, and the current namespace doesn't need to be preserved as a redirect, as nobody is going to use that abomination in a search. Agricolae ( talk) 01:48, 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 merge to Pyramid (game show). Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

$100,000 Pyramid (video game)

$100,000 Pyramid (video game) (  | 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 found no significant coverage for this video game. I managed to find a review of a video game with the same name that was based on the same game show, but I can't find anything for this 1987 video game. SL93 ( talk) 00:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 00:28, 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_May_15&oldid=1142617957"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 14 May 16 May >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Edward Dring

Edward Dring (  | 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 does not meet WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. The google hits at first give the impression of significant coverage, but none are in depth and many are reviews for Voice from the Stone. There is a to-be-released film w/o indepth coverage of the subject Dlohcierekim ( talk) 22:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:54, 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) 22:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

GTS Wrestling

GTS Wrestling (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Did a little research on this, it appears to be a toy collector who reviewed action figures & expanded it in to back yard wrestling. No TV deals, no PPV, no big stars. No real press even in wrestling fandom magazines, just a few entries in Wikis here & there. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. JamesG5 ( talk) 22:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:59, 21 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) 22:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Ryan Isiah Reid

Ryan Isiah Reid (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Semi-advert for what appears to be a non-qualifying semi-pro footballer playing for third- and fourth-tier teams. Orange Mike | Talk 21:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 22:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 22:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 22:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 22:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

In the article it stats that he played with Toronto Skillz league 1 Ontario team which is a semi-professional Canadian league. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshSmith89 ( talk • contribs) 23:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete. Non-notable soccer player. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:58, 21 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. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 02:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Hank Thomas

Hank Thomas (  | 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 person is certainly very accomplished, but is in fact notable for a WP:SINGLEEVENT. While numerous secondary sources support his existence, every one of them centers around his participation in a Freedom Ride. There is no indication of receiving any significant awards, or of any significant leadership in the civil rights movement. Participating in a freedom ride does not guarantee a Wikipedia article. Magnolia677 ( talk) 21:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep He has been featured specifically in various news stories for his role in the civil rights movement beyond a single event (he was involved in several notable events including the bus burning and a court case he raised). [1] [2] [3] [4] Of course news stories mention that he was a freedom rider, but WP:SINGLEEVENT applies when the only coverage of somebody is in the context of a single event and not where they receive coverage for years after about their other work ("if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified"). He is included in the International Civil Rights Walk of Fame which is a significant honor (most inductees are notable). -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 09:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Except for the first source listed, the other three focus almost exclusively on his participation in the freedom rides, a single event. The subsequent media coverage about his business and art collection would not have been notable if not for his participation in (not leadership of) the freedom rides. Magnolia677 ( talk) 22:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per Colapeninsula. Also, Hank participated in four Freedom Rides, not one - a preparatory ride on April 22, 1961, the original CORE Freedom Ride during May 4–17, 1961 for which he is best known, a Mississippi Freedom Ride on May 24, 1961, and a New Jersey to Arkansas CORE Freedom Ride during July 13–24, 1961. Please see the List of Freedom Rides section for details. Mitchumch ( talk) 17:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete His role as a businessman is not enough to make him notable. His role in the Freedom Rides was not formative enough to make him notable either. He was just one of many participants, and being a participant in such an event does not make one notable. The article goes too deeply into coat racking other subjects. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
    • @ Johnpacklambert: Hank was one of 18 participants in the original CORE Freedom Ride and one of 7 participants in the bus that was firebombed in Anniston, Alabama. That Freedom Ride in combination with the Nashville Student Movement Freedom Ride in 1961 was a pivotal event in the Civil Rights Movement. It is on par with the Greensboro sit-ins of 1960, the Birmingham campaign of 1963, and the Harlem riot of 1964. Each of those events served as a massive catalyst for subsequent events. Hanks continued participation in three other Freedom Rides has placed him in a unique position that few of the other 436 participants can claim. Mitchumch ( talk) 06:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Not every footsoldier in the civil rights movement was notable. Just as the Brooklyn Bridge is notable, not every one of the hundreds who build it are. Every argument to keep this article centers on the fact that this person--along with 436 others--participated in something notable. Yet I see nothing particularly notable about his participation. Being involved in a historical event does not automatically make you notable, and there is nothing to indicate he was a leader or "major participant". Magnolia677 ( talk) 13:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
"Being involved" in this historical event went beyond Thomas being one of the first Freedom Riders with the CORE group, where he was almost burned alive and, in escaping the burning bus, was whacked on the side of the head with a baseball bat. Then what he did after that horrendous and life-threatening-to-the-extreme experience was what few went on to do - he joined the continuation of the Freedom Ride 10 days later, when it was picked up by the Nashville Student Movement. John Lewis was another original rider who completed the entire trip. The Freedom Ride ended in Jackson, Mississippi, and there Thomas was immediately arrested and jailed, probably for trying to desegregate the segregated Waiting Room. This fellow is as notable as notable-worthy on Wikipedia can be, per sources. Randy Kryn 15:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Being "almost burned alive" and "whacked on the side of the head with a baseball bat" do not contribute to notability. From my read, and from the arguments put forward in the AfD, this person was a non-notable footsoldier. Perhaps some mention of Thomas could instead be added to the Freedom Riders article. He was certainly no Fannie Lou Hamer. Magnolia677 ( talk) 18:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Possibly if, after almost being burned alive and living through a skull-crushing swing of a baseball bat, he had run off, I could see your point. His main notoriety is that he boarded the next Freedom Ride bus with John Lewis and others, and rode it to the finish. Fannie Lou Hamer is someone else, who was active a little later. This page is about Hank Thomas, who is as notable per Wikipedia criteria as Hamer and other noted civil rights activists of the 1960s. Randy Kryn 19:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Magnolia677: Hank has received sufficient coverage in reliable sources to warrant the existence of his article page. I've searched through numerous articles listed in the ProQuest database. If need be, then I can start listing every newspaper article that covered him on his article page. Hank is as notable as Joseph McNeil, Franklin McCain, Ezell Blair Jr., and David Richmond who all initiated the Greensboro sit-ins. Being "almost burned alive" and "whacked on the side of the head with a baseball bat" by pro-segregationist are precisely why the spectacle of that event and its participants are remembered and taught to students. That violent reaction motivated others to continue to challenge pro-segregationist thru more Freedom Rides. Mitchumch ( talk) 21:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep, as a major participant in the Freedom Rides (Rides, not just one Ride) Thomas was chosen as the spokesperson at the recent dedication of the Freedom Riders Monument. His "single event" (actually four single events) was one of the most historic and courageous ongoing events in the early 1960s. Per adequate sourcing, and per Mitchumch and Colapeninsula who summarize Thomas' notability correctly. Randy Kryn 11:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep = while not all the Freedom Riders are notable, the more active ones certainly would be, as is this subject. Bearian ( talk) 23:18, 22 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) 01:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Joseph Dear

Joseph Dear (  | 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 found no significant coverage per WP:BIO. SL93 ( talk) 21:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - an obit by itself could be a reliable source, but does not determine notability per se, unless it's a feature such as The New York Times. I don't see how a CIO of a state agency, even a big one, is automatically notable. Bearian ( talk) 23:21, 22 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 00:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Charles de Chassiron (British diplomat)

Charles de Chassiron (British diplomat) (  | 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 tagged this BLP as requiring more sources earlier today, before setting out to find some. I'd assumed that a reasonable number of independent, reliable sources would exist, but my searches haven't really turned up significant coverage, so I'm now not convinced that the subject meets WP:GNG. Cordless Larry ( talk) 20:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Probably needs a cite for that to meet WP:V. Artw ( talk) 13:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Done. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above. Artw ( talk) 13:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for adding the source, Necrothesp. I presume that the rationale behind WP:ANYBIO #1 is that someone who has received such an award is likely to have been the subject of significant coverage, but the issue is that I can't find that coverage. Note that the guideline states that "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards" and that "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" (emphasis mine). I would still like to see some coverage of the subject in independent sources. Cordless Larry ( talk) 15:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keepKeep. the award is sufficient. Presu,ed in a case like that means that he is so likely to have sufficient coverage, that if we cannot find it, its the faullt of the available search tools and our access to sources. It would have to be actually shown there aren;t any sources (there are special conditions where that can be done, but it's not easy). DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Unless I'm missing something, WP:ANYBIO doesn't use the wording "presumed" though, DGG - it uses "likely", which has a different meaning. In any case, what sorts of sources would this coverage that we can't access be in? I have checked newspaper archives, library catalogues, etc., but can't really think where else coverage would exist. Cordless Larry ( talk) 07:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply
You are right. I was intending to use that argument about presumed for the SNGs where the term is used in this manner. The GNG uses it in a different manner--that meeting the GNG only leads to a presumption but not a guarantee of notability . But for the question you asked, in this this case what I think would have to be checked is the major newspapers in the capital where he was ambassador and possibly where his other positions were. Have you checked Estonian newspapers? (changing to weak keep, btw) DGG ( talk ) 15:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Nexis has reports from the Baltic News Service that mention his name, DGG, and there are a couple of French and Italian sources, but from memory they are only mentions too. I'll take another look tomorrow and also check whether Estonian newspapers are included in Nexis. Cordless Larry ( talk) 22:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply
I've checked Nexis again, DGG, and while doing so thought I should set out the coverage I found there, since many others don't have access. The vast majority of mentions of his name in English sources are in lists of attendees of events such as dinners, and in the Independent newspaper's list of birthdays. They can safely be disregarded, I think. There are also some brief mentions in the Court Circular, as you'd expect. The French-language sources seem to be about a different Charles de Chassiron. The Italian source is about a state visit by the Queen to Italy, and just mentions him once. Most of the Baltic News Service articles are just mentions (e.g. at the end of a short piece on a British parliamentary delegation visiting Estonia, "Before their departure on Wednesday, the British MPs will visit the Baltic center of the British Council in Tallinn and meet British Ambassador Charles de Chassiron"). One of them is a bit more substantial, covering a meeting between de Chassiron and the Estonian PM in 2004, but it's short (210 words) and pretty routine. To the main issue, though, which is Estonian newspapers. I haven't found an easy way to check whether newspapers are included in Nexis's database by country, but looking at the alphabetical list, Postimees isn't there, which isn't a promising sign. I did check the newspaper's web archive (results here), but it would need an Estonian speaker to check the extent of the coverage in each of those results. Cordless Larry ( talk) 07:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
I consider it borderline. I think it ought to meet the standards for notability , but a number of years ago the standardsfor ambassadors were tightened. I argued at the time that it was the top level of a major professor, and should therefore be presumed notable . In practice, this not have consensus, though articles of ambassadors of major countries to major countries usually do not qualify. I admit it would be stretching it a bit to call Latvia a major country. I stand by my weak keep, as I thin kmy reasons still valid, but the consensus will decide.
I want to say that in my opinion you have done an exceptionally through job of looking for documentation. It still won't get print sources, but it is much more careful than the usual superficial searches usually seen at AfD, and based on this, I will take the results of your checks very seriously. U;m quite impressed. DGG ( talk ) 09:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Nexis does include print newspaper sources, DGG, though with the caveat that Estonian newspapers seem to be missing. I suppose that there could be other print publications with coverage. In any case, I think I agree that this is a borderline case, and I'm not that familiar with how diplomats tend to fair at AfD. If the article is kept, I will try to use the sources I've found to ensure it is fully sourced. Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Oh, and thanks for the compliment! It's not necessary, but is appreciated. Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:55, 21 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) 22:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Extreme World Wrestling

Extreme World Wrestling (  | 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 promotion. Relies on primary sources. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 19:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 19:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 19:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:35, 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 speedy keep. Ah yes I remember the NMEDIA thing now......., Well as the previous discussion got no where I don't particularly want another long and tiresome debate over NMEDIA so as such closing as Withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 19:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Tone FM

Tone FM (  | 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 radio station, Found these [5] [6] about the station mocking homeless people however other than that there's a few one-bit mentions, Fails RADIO NMEDIA & GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 18:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
WP:RADIO is the WikiProject. The notability criteria for radio stations are spelled out at WP:NMEDIA. Bearcat ( talk) 18:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Whoops sorry I thought Radio would've linked back to NMEDIA, I've amended the comment, Cheers, – Davey2010 Talk 18:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. While this definitely needs more sourcing than it has before it could be considered a good article, it doesn't need any more sourcing than it has to satisfy WP:NMEDIA: the base criteria that a radio station has to meet to be eligible for a Wikipedia article are that it is verifiable in at least one reliable source as (a) having a license from the appropriate broadcast regulator, and (b) originating at least some of its own programming in its own studios. As long as those conditions are met, a radio station need claim nothing else that would make it a special case above and beyond any other radio station — media outlets are one of those areas where Wikipedia's stated and consensus-established goal is to be as complete as feasibly possible a reference for all verifiable members of their class of topic. (No, we obviously can't be perfect about it — but our goal is to get and stay as close to "all radio stations that meet the criteria, without exception" as we can realistically get.) So this should absolutely be flagged for refimprove, because it does indeed need more referencing than this before it can be considered a good article — but to be keepable, all a radio station actually has to do is show at least one reliable source (which the BBC certainly is) which verifies that the base criteria for notability are met. Obviously we would still prefer more sourcing than is present in the article right now — but to get a radio station over the base inclusion criteria, the only thing we require is that the reliable sourcing isn't sitting at zero. Bearcat ( talk) 18:46, 21 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) 01:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Mynd

Mynd (  | 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 about a non-notable company formed last year. The sources cited in the article consist of press releases, routine coverage, and coverage about the founder's previous company. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH for lack of available independent sources. - Mr X 18:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:54, 21 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) 01:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

M G Moula Miah

M G Moula Miah (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Businessman with no indication of notability per WP:BIO. No significant coverage online in WP:Reliable sources, just passing mentions. Most of the references cited here are brief mentions in local press, or profiles from businesses connected with him. The one reference from a national paper (Daily Star) only mentions his name in passing as one of 13 recipients of a business commendation. I had tagged it for notability, hoping someone who reads Bengali might find some WP:RS on him in the Bangladesh press, but now someone in Solihull has just removed that without explanation. Uncle Roy ( talk) 17:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy ( talk) 17:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy ( talk) 17:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy ( talk) 17:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I think he is close to notability, and possibly would be if there were easier access to older press not online. However, with what is available I regret I could find little coverage focused directly on him, although sources such as this [7] do focus on him in part. This recognition from the government is impressive indeed, but does not seem like enough on its own. There is also an article focused on him included on the main page, an Evening Mail article from October 1995 called “Man with a mission to back Bangladeshi food.” But that still does not seem like quite enough to me, all combined. I though his restaurant Rajnagar Tandoori might be notable, as it did garnish an impressive 2006 award at The British Curry Awards, but came up short looking for sources as well. I do think some of the content on his page might be worth adding to Guild of Bangladeshi Restaurateurs, maybe in a new section for past presidents. Yvarta ( talk) 00:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There appears to be sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry from person(s) connected with the subject of the article. All of the content has so far been added by two WP:SPAs, one of which has so far only uploaded and linked annotated press clippings and personal photos of the subject sourced as "own work", along with the previously mentioned anon editor in Solihull. Article creator and the anon editor have also been repeatedly removing the AFD template. Also worth noting that the "New York Times" clipping is clearly an advertising insert: the typefaces aren't the ones used by the NYT, the tone is promotional, and the grammar is very poor. Uncle Roy ( talk) 03:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:30, 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. Kurykh ( talk) 01:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Erasmus Student Network Slovakia

Erasmus Student Network Slovakia (  | 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 section of Erasmus Student Network. Google search reveals no independent in-depth coverage. Sourced relevant details beyond the common functions of a country-specific subsection could be mentioned in the main article. GermanJoe ( talk) 16:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe ( talk) 17:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe ( talk) 17:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:30, 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 redirect to List of Wikipedias. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Doteli Wikipedia

Doteli Wikipedia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is every edition of Wikipedia automatically notable? I don't think this passes WP:NWEB since a web search only turns up other WMF sites and mirrors, as well as articles about the Doteli language. Jc86035 ( talk) Use {{ re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 17:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:30, 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 redirect to Twenty One Pilots discography. Keeping in mind the intensive edit warring, there is unanimous consensus that indefinite protection or full protection be applied. ( non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 04:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Regional at Best

Regional at Best (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If you need to view the content, look at a version that contained text. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. This is an early recording by a notable group, but by itself is not notable. I have looked for sources to satisfy GNG or NALBUM and none exist. The ones that the fans bring up are mentions of content in the album or discussions of members at the time of the recording, but nothing concrete. Taking to Afd as requested here Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

An admin will have to include the AfD notice on the page as it's locked. The tool I use added it here Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
I did that. Note that this is the version editors should look at when deciding on notability. -- NeilN talk to me 15:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:30, 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 Moved to Draft:Grant Knoche. When an open AFD points to a redirect or an untagged page, a bot adds it to WP:BADAFD, which is where I noticed this one. In the scheme of things, it's not a big deal - that's why we have the bot. I've done the necessary here. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Grant Knoche

Grant Knoche (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLPPROD'd by me, but declined because the "References" section contained a GOOGLE SEARCH LINK. I'm serious. KMF ( talk) 14:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: Actually, it was the Instagram link, not the Google search link, that was the problem. I have previously argued that links like that should not prevent BLPPRODs, but the consensus of the community is that they should, so ... that's what we do. -- joe decker talk 14:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 17:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 17:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • PROBLEM NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP: Page has been moved from Grant Knoche to Draft:Grant Knoche. I see no consensus above to userfy the page, the move left a big This template is being used in the wrong namespace. To nominate this talk page for deletion, go to Miscellany for deletion. on the page, and nobody closed this AfD. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:29, 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 redirect to Fishbowl Inventory. (non-admin closure) f e minist 00:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

David K Williams

David K Williams (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Some people have complained over the years (on the talk page and in edit summaries) that this is a puff piece for a non-notable individual, and I agree. Article is lacking in in-depth coverage in a breadth of reliable secondary sources. Citobun ( talk) 14:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:29, 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) 22:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Ang Panday (2017 film)

Ang Panday (2017 film) (  | 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:NFF made it clear that articles about films should not be created until principal photography has begun as supported by reliable source; not the case with this one. Blue sphere 13:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 17:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 17:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:29, 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 redirect to Tatineni Rama Rao. A merger can be performed by accessing the page history. (non-admin closure) f e minist 00:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Khabardar (unreleased film)

Khabardar (unreleased film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated for deletion as shelved films do not have their own article unless the dates are announced. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:28, 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. Kurykh ( talk) 01:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

REC*IT

REC*IT (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fundamentally a product listing with little evidence of notability. Created by a COI ring related to the software developer's parent company. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Antonseidler). Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 12:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 17:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 17:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:28, 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 no consensus. After two relistings, no consensus for a particular outcome has arisen within this discussion for these articles. The last two !votes come across as possibly only being based upon the Battle of Tin Keraten article listed in the section header, and may not take the other related pages nominated for deletion herein into consideration. This is per the singular wording used in the last two !votes (e.g. "it does appear to be...", "not a battle..."). North America 1000 01:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply


Battle of Tin Keraten

Battle of Tin Keraten (  | 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 one of about ten so-called "battles" (listed in the Northern Mali conflict template) that really just amount to small clashes. They don't have significant press coverage, not surprisingly, and don't merit articles. I don't see any hits searching for "Battle of xxx" from reliable sources. (There are more listed, but let's start with these.)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Second Battle of Gao (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (88 men vs about 300)
Third Battle of Gao (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (1200 vs about 36)
Fourth Battle of Gao (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (1700 vs 40)
Fifth Battle of Gao (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (? vs 9+)
Battle of Khalil (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Battle of Tigharghar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Battle of Timbuktu (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (? vs 50)
Battle of Djebok (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (460 vs ?)
Battle of Hamakouladji (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (7 killed)
Battle of Araouane (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Clarityfiend ( talk) 00:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:28, 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.


  • True, I only seriously examine one. They are all much the same, minimal coverage, shouldn't be titled "battle", and all could be merged. Actually, I recommend merging them all to the conflict they are part of. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Bboy Hannibal

Bboy Hannibal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A series of youtube videos, IMDb links, and a Facebook page do not make a person notable. Article fails WP:BIO. KDS4444 ( talk) 16:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

How else can you prove a dancer is notable? Their actions are only recorded in videos and pics. The links are from official accounts and the dancer is in the videos and pics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugenbee ( talk • contribs) 17:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:51, 21 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 Twelve Colonies. Clear consensus against a separate article. No consensus between delete and merge. The redirect is a compromise that allows merging content from history if anybody is interested. If Twelve Colonies is itself deleted, this article will eventually share its fate.  Sandstein  09:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Quorum of Twelve

Quorum of Twelve (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor fictional element with no real-world significance, all sources are limited to plot summaries and other in-universe mentions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Disambiguate Clarityfiend's observation is accurate: this name, with a slight stylistic difference belongs to an LDS leadership body. On purpose, actually. So for the BSG bits, Merge into the franchise itself (what little needs to merge) but keep this as a disambiguation page, maybe with a brief explanation of the Glen Larson connection between the two terms. Jclemens ( talk) 06:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 11:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:38, 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. No consensus to delete these as a group. Individual articles can be renominated.  Sandstein  14:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC) reply

British Heavyweight Championship (XWA)

British Heavyweight Championship (XWA) (  | 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 sports championships. The article relies on primary sources. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 14:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC) Also nominating the following for the same reasons: reply

British Light Heavyweight Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
British Lightweight Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
British Mid-Heavyweight Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
British Open Tag Team Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
British Welterweight Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
All-England Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
NWA Scottish Heavyweight Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
European Heavyweight Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
British Flyweight Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
British Empire/Commonwealth Heavyweight Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
British Commonwealth Junior Heavyweight Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
These are NOT "regional titles" - they are national titles of a sovereign state (the UK) defended on that country's mainstream national TV. Romomusicfan ( talk) 02:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep these ones at least:

This set of titles were (and still are) important and historic in the UK and were regularly defended on national network TV ( ITV). Are sourced from respected reliable source (Wrestling-Titles.com) although some need this citing properly (will fix). It's frankly astonishing that anyone could suggest that these titles should be deleted and it smacks of a bad faith attempt to bury British wrestling history (actually, looking at Sportsfan 1234's edit history, it looks like he/she is an Olympic Wrestling fan with an axe to grind about worked pro wrestling.) Romomusicfan ( talk) 01:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply

However, Delete NWA Scotland, British Flyweight, XWA British Heavyweight and All England titles - these four are latterday concoctions without the history and public awareness of the other titles. Undecided about the Commonwealth Junior Heavyweight title - depends on how much prestige it has gained in Japan. Romomusicfan ( talk) 08:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
What would you consider to constitute acceptable verifiable secondary coverage for pro wrestling titles, Eggishorn? The Wrestling Titles website seems to be considered a reliable and acceptable source for most pro wrestling titles pages. Maybe we should get some people in from Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling to give us their opinions on what constitutes an acceptable source? Romomusicfan ( talk) 14:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Having looked into Wrestling Titles, it uses mostly user-provided data with little (if any) evidence of editorial selectivity. In other words, it does not meet the qualifications of WP:RS. What is required is independent coverage in RS, and verifiability. No such sources have been adduced for these titles. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
So in that case, should an AfD be started about WCW World Heavyweight Championship and List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions? The only sources on either are (1) the same Wrestling Titles site (2) the website for WWE which now owns the defunct WCW brand and so is hardly independent? Come to that, looking at the WWE Championship and List of WWE Champions pages uses those same sources plus a host of unofficial fan-run news services that - to anyone unfamiliar with them - would appear to have Unreliable written all over them. And that's for just about the most Notable pro wrestling title on the planet!
Problem seems to me that you are going against editorial consensus about Wrestling-Titles.com not being a reliable source and there is a substantial body of Wikipedia editors who would disagree with you. It occurs to me that from your perspective there is a general issue with the sourcing on ALL pro wrestling pages - in which case perhaps you and Sportfan 1234 should take the issue up with WikiProject Professional Wrestling rather than trying to pick off random titles/sets of titles/companies? Romomusicfan ( talk) 18:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
P.S. Have posted about this AfD on the Wikiproject's talk page Romomusicfan ( talk) 14:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
A) Editorial consensus of a project has no standing to overturn notability standards. Project-based SNG's are intended to supplement, not replace GNG. B) I see no indication that mention on Wrestling-titles.com has been accepted as a SNG for wrestling promotions. C) The rest of your argument is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Excuse my ignorance but what is an "SNG"?  MPJ -DK  20:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I strongly question nominating all of these at the same time. Some of them might be notable and some others might not be. ★Trekker ( talk) 14:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
    Agree - and see my vote post above for my suggestions of which should really be kept and which are probably okay for the chop. Romomusicfan ( talk) 15:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose in its current format. A huge bulk AFD like this makes notabiliy discussions impossible to maintain. Some of these I agree are not notable and others clearly are and some are in between, having ONE discussion of all of these is not going to get a constructive result. Individual AFD or much smaller groups please.  MPJ -DK  16:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep those listed by Romomusicfan. Looking at the criteria for deletion it's not about the sources in the article only, but the coverage that exists in reliable sources. Looking at all the championships that Romomusicfan listed I can confirm that each of them has their own section in Royal Duncan and Gary Will's "Wrestling title histories: professional wrestling champions around the world from the 19th century to the present" book. Duncan and Will are cited over and over again as being subject matter experts in professional wrestling championships through the year 2000 and that book is considered a bible to wrestling historians. Yes, someone would have to find sources for the post-2000 title changes, but that's a matter of sourcing, not proving notability and thus not a deletion criteria.  MPJ -DK  21:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep those listed by Romomusicfan. Appeared weekly on national television. Why is there even a question about those? I think the nominator really need to step away from pro wrestling articles altogether. Their pattern of edits show a decided POV. oknazevad ( talk) 15:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Thanks for the votes of confidence for my choices! Perhaps what is really needed to silence the likes of Sportsfan 1234 and Eggishorn - since this is ostensibly the source of their gripe - is some sourcing to establish the titles' claims to notability (based on how the titles were defended and changed hands on a high profile national TV show - a far higher media profile than most US regions enjoyed at the time, in fact). The most obvious source that could be cited are the actual broadcasts as well as TVTimes listings for matches. Many of these matches and title changes are on Youtube which is now regarded as an acceptable source. ITV Wrestling is a very good site for listings and even has the relevant Youtube videos embedded - even if the site itself is not a satisfactory source, it should make a good directory for identifying citeable sources. It's even got a title changes page with televised changes in Bold. We don't need to cite very single change, just get a few examples for an Assertation of Notability in the opening paragraphs of each article.
Only problem areas are the British Open Tag Team title which was crated just after ITV coverage finished but nonetheless has changed hands on national TV (Superflies beating the Liverpool Lads on Robbie Brookside's Video Diary in 1993 on BBC2) and the Mid Heavyweight and Middleweight titles which stayed stuck around one wrestler each - the former around Mike Marino until his death in 1981, the latter around Brian Maxine until circa 2000 when TWA set up a new version. Still, both of them appeared with the belts on TV and may have made some succesful defences which may suffice. Romomusicfan ( talk) 17:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all. We can split hairs on some belts later, but this blanket "These all suck" nomination isn't helping anyone. For the record I also think out of the picked out list, the All England Championship is notable, as it was defended on FWA (which had a TV show) and ROH on an international cross promoted PPV. Crisis. E X E 19:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
I have to say that the old British wrestling TV slot on which Mountevans titles were defended (ITV on a Saturday afternoon just before the football results) was a rather higher profile piece of TV coverage than the FWA's show (local cable TV). It was also produced by ITV independently of the promoters whereas AFAIK FWA's show was simply filmed privately by the promotion in question and then sold on to the TV channel like old regional TV wrestling shows in the US in the 70s/80s. Romomusicfan ( talk) 08:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Well yes, we all get the point that on a visceral level, certainly for anyone British and above a certain age (or failing that, culturally informed about the Britain of that era) the notability of these titles is self-evident. What's really needed however is to not give the likes of Sportsfan and Eggishorn an excuse for labelling them as non notable. And that's where, moving forward, a proper referenced assertation of notability for each title article in its opening section will come in. Romomusicfan ( talk) 08:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply
(Oh and Haystacks did do a short spell in WCW near the end of his career as the Loch Ness Monster, but the less said about that, the better.) Romomusicfan ( talk) 09:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Ooh, I like "...the likes of...Eggishorn." It makes me feel like I'm part of some secret cabal. Wait a minute, did the secret cabal induct me without telling me? How would I know? In all seriousness, 2.24.71.95 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), while it certainly isn't contradictory to be both a wrestling fan (or fan of anything else) and a Wikipedian, looking at an AfD debate solely through a fan's eyes generally does not help anyone. While fans should be best-placed to indicate why a part of their field of interest meets notability guidelines, they need to convince other editors that the article subject does in fact meets those guidelines. I don't see "I remember it from Saturday afternoons" in any notability guideline, but that doesn't mean you can't improve the article. Since Romomusicfan mentioned this TV coverage (which would make them notable), there's been no references produced to indicate that this is true. Are there any old program listings that confirm World of Sport coverage? Any wrestling new sites? Anything? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply
>Since Romomusicfan mentioned this TV coverage (which would make them notable), there's been no references produced to indicate that this is true. Are there any old program listings that confirm World of Sport coverage?
Since you mention it, Eggishorn, I did in fact mention TVTimes which contained full listings of matches televised by ITV as well as many feature articles on wrestling. I also mentioned tertiarty source site ITV Wrestling which reproduces all of these listings and from which accurate citations of the original TVTimes listings can be extrapolated. (I also mentioned that a good many of the title match broadcasts are available for scrutiny on Youtube, which I gather is these days considered an acceptable Wiki source.)
Okay, you've indicated that a listings magazine would be an acceptable source; in that I can equip each page with a basic Assertion Of Notability relating to the ITV coverage, supported by examples of coverage (particularly title changes) in the form of TVTimes citations and/or the actual transmissions (supported by Youtube). If you will confirm that this is acceptable to you, then by all means I'll get to work on it. Romomusicfan ( talk) 08:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Further to the above, I have, by way of a specimen, kitted out the British Lightweight Championship article with an assertion of notability backed up with references to both TV broadcasts directly (two of these supplemented with Youtube video) and TVTimes listings. Romomusicfan ( talk) 09:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Added formatting to the references and also added them to the title changes in the table so they are sourced in both locations.  MPJ -DK  11:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply
OK, cheers, if Eggishorn is satisfied with this, I can start doing this for some of the other pages. Romomusicfan ( talk) 11:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Have done it for the British Welterweight Championship too. Romomusicfan ( talk) 13:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Yeah this is all true. I completely disapprove of mass AFD nominations like these but if the titles are indeed notable there should be work put into improving them by the people who think that they should stay. ★Trekker ( talk) 17:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have been doing some source work on the titles that were created prior to 2000 based on information in a book that is considered a reliable source. The book ("Wrestling Title histories") has a section on each of the championships. I am working on double checking the EUropean and the Commonwealth championships for corretness but they do have sections in the book as well.  MPJ -DK  03:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment British Empire/Commonwealth Heavyweight Championship is a bit of a mess, amalgamating various championships together without making it clear etc. so it' making souring problematic as it's bits and pieces from all over. It really needs to be reworked, which I'd be happy to do, although if it get deleted I guess it'd be wasted effort  MPJ -DK  21:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Which is wny I was rather hoping Eggishorn might come back and offer some feedback on the sourcing work I've done on the Brit LWt and Brit Wwt pages. As for the Commonwealth title, your best bet is to round up some articles on Count Bartelli that mention him as champion, for example this. Also check some of his TV matches from 1970s UK to see if commentator Kent Walton mentions the title. Romomusicfan ( talk) 08:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply
According to this he was acknowledged in TVTimes as Commonwealth champion for his two fall win over Pete Roberts in 1976 and it may even have been a title defence. Romomusicfan ( talk) 08:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Done! added these Romomusicfan ( talk) 23:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply
As I said elsewhere, this has gotten far too personalized. Wikipedia is neither a forum nor Facebook and I am not the arbiter of what is or is not acceptable. The admin who will close this is perfectly capable of deciding whether YouTube videos are sufficiently reliable evidence of notability for these wrestling titles. I have no interest in continuing to be the bête noire of British wrestling fandom. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Done - both of them! Romomusicfan ( talk) 23:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Also there are some lengthier wrestling features in TVTimes with material about championships. One 1968 essay focusses heavily on Billy Robinson in his role as incumbent double crown British/European Heavyweight Champion. A 1977 two part interview with recently retired George Kidd includes a table of British, European and World Champions - I believe there is a scan of this on a UK wrestling history site somewhere. (Intriguingly it recognises [WWWF World Champion Bruno Sammartino as World Heavyweight Champion - probably on account of his 1976 Shea Stadium defence against Stan Hansen being included as part of public closed circuit live screenings of the Ali vs Inoki boxer/wrestler match). There was also a lengthy pullout section in 1980 to mark 25 years of ITV coverage which may include championship details Romomusicfan ( talk) 10:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply
British Mid-Heavyweight Championship - Found the article and added linked reference - also found onscreen ITV acknowledgement of Mike Marino as champion. Added both references. Romomusicfan ( talk) 00:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply
European Heavyweight Championship Added reference to the same article plus reference to 1967 TV broadcast featuring Billy Robinson announced as incumbent double crown British/European champion.
Right then, that's a fully referenced Assertion of Notability for all the articles I voted to keep. Romomusicfan ( talk) 16:06, 25 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) 22:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Amaury Guichon

Amaury Guichon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per source searches, this subject does not appear to meet WP:BASIC. North America 1000 16:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:49, 21 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Chrissy Gephardt

Chrissy Gephardt (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete or merge with Dick Gephardt article -- thoroughly non-notable; does not derive notability by connection to notable relative (in this case her father). Quis separabit? 15:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:12, 15 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) 18:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:24, 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 speedy delete. Per WP:CHILD ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 15:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Dan Redwood

Dan Redwood (  | 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- WP:N person. f e minist 15:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. f e minist 15:40, 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 speedy delete. WP:G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. ( non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Taha - The Arabic Type Classification System

Taha - The Arabic Type Classification System (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An original academic article, which author indicated was previously presented as a conference paper (can be found on YouTube). Wikipedia is not a publisher of primary research and this also falls under WP:NOR.

PROD removed by page creator with comment in edit summary on personal talk page "I had removed any indication of publication or publisher." RA0808 talk contribs 13:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. RA0808 talk contribs 14:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:06, 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 Moved to Draft:J.LeGras. I've cleaned up the cross-namespace redirect. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC) reply

J.LeGras

J.LeGras (  | 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 musician; basically just a puff-piece. A WP:BEFORE shows absolutely zero signs of notability. Lacking any kind of coverage in reliable sources- let alone the requirement for depth and persistence of that coverage- shows that the article subject has no chance of passing WP:MUSICBIO or WP:ANYBIO. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 13:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • This young man is a beginning musician. Please check links below to see credit. He also has new music coming out soon.

https://jlegras.com Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LeGrasMusic/ Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6eQqdcOP-OeudduHN9EATA Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/j.legras/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeGrasMusic ( talk • contribs) 17:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC) — LeGrasMusic ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply

The Value Hill

The Value Hill (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot see any reason why this ghastly lump of marketing jargon is in any way notable TheLongTone ( talk) 13:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

I consider the Value Hill as a nice new way of looking at circular business models. Especially the methaphorically visualisation of the idea behind a circular economy, be it the prolongation of the use of products and materials in its highest value possible. Michiel100( talk) 16:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment: Hello, your comments above amount to " it's interesting" or " I like it". These in and of themselves are not valid reasons to keep an article. If you want this article to be kept, you need to demonstrate that it meets the notability criteria for inclusion. — KuyaBriBri Talk 19:09, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Sanjay Shah (businessman)

AfDs for this article:
Sanjay Shah (businessman) (  | 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 made up of non-notable accomplishments and an unproven fraud accusation that never went to trial. Jppcap ( talk) previously nominated it for AfD based on WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPCRIME, concluding in no consensus. SwisterTwister suggested we relist this, and I agree. The article's content simply does not meet WP:GNG. RenaultMurnles ( talk) 13:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Being a fugitive from the law and escaping to a country without an extradition treaty may perhaps postpone criminal trial in some jurisdictions - but this if at all increased the notability of the person. BLPCRIME really doesn't address fugitives. He is receiving on-going coverage in 2017 - [10] [11]. We are talking about a case exceeding a billion dollars - and a suspect who had some notability also beforehand, and in which very large (hundreds of millions) forfeiture has already been made. Icewhiz ( talk) 14:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:52, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

The Newfound Interest In Connecticut

The Newfound Interest In Connecticut (  | 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 about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, and nowhere close to enough reliable source coverage to support it. The strongest notability claim here is that they released one album before breaking up -- but if the existence of albums is going to be the main notability hook in and of itself, then NMUSIC requires two of them. And for referencing, what's been shown here is not substantive coverage about the band: there's one "13 bands you might have forgotten" listicle that features a mere blurb's worth of content about this band, and three reviews of the album of which two are on blogs rather than in media that would count for anything toward GNG. So the review in Exclaim! is really the only source that counts for anything at all toward NMUSIC #1 (which is the only criterion they actually have a chance at fulfilling), but one review isn't enough to pass NMUSIC #1 all by itself. Bearcat ( talk) 23:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:07, 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 redirect to Cambridge_Latin_Course#Book_I. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Cambridge Latin Course Book I

Cambridge Latin Course Book I (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:NBOOK. Also the four other books in the series do not have a page. Meatsgains ( talk) 13:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:47, 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 no consensus. Kurykh ( talk) 22:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Mariah Haberman

Mariah Haberman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Haberman was not even Miss Wisconsin, being that would not make her notable, but being a contender even less so. The sources on her show are either local chamber of commerce press releases, or the alumni magazine from her college, these are not what we look for as reliable sources. The Huff Po blog article on her and her Miss Wisconsin role is so non-reliable it says she was Miss Wisconsin, which is just not true. My search for additional sources came up with more blogs, her webpage, and maybe another local chamber of commerce press release, but nothing at all that was a reliable source. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Her notability is for being a television host, not for her involvement in the Miss Wisconsin pagent. The HuffPo must have made a typo since she won a local "Miss Wisconsin Central" pagent not the state. They missed the word Central. Google has many hits for her. There are hundreds of trivial mentions of her recording for the show at a locale and it's hard to wade through all of them to find the reliable ones about her. I don't see the HuffPo article as being unreliable just because they missed one word in it. I added another television station's article about her and much more content. She has written several newspaper articles for USA Today-Wisconsin such as [12]. Royal broil 03:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The HuffPo article is still from the blog section, which does not have editorial oversight and so cannot count as a reliable source, period. The UW Oshkosh source is a college paper source, not worthwhile. Another source is local coverage of her beauty pageant career. The one added source actually helps us see how the whole coverage of her in the article is over stated. She is a host of the mentioned show, not the host. Beyond this, this is a 4 paragraph article not about her, or giving significant coverage of her. It is a feel good promotional local radio/TV article about how the town is getting covered in the show, add in that this is Haberman's home town. A total of 0 or these sources meet the requirement of reliable, secondary 3rd party sources. Haberman writing in some way for USA today in no way adds towards her passing GNG. She is just totally non-notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 06:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:57, 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. Sort of WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Sam Lipman-Stern

Sam Lipman-Stern (  | 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 director lacking non-trivial support. "References" are single line mentions, unrelated, or fail to mention article subject. reddogsix ( talk) 04:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:56, 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 redirect to Battlestar Galactica. Apart from Piotrus and Jclemens, there are almost no serious arguments here, only "votes" or assertions of (non-)notability. Nonetheless, I must give Piotrus's view controlling weight because it is better supported by relevant policies and guidelines. His analysis of Jclemens's sources is not contested, including by Jclemens, leading me to conclude that it is common ground in this discussion that there is not the amount and quality of sources required for an article about this topic in the light of WP:GNG.  Sandstein  09:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Twelve Colonies

Twelve Colonies (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor fictional element with no real-world significance, all sources are limited to plot summaries and other in-universe mentions. For people who want to keep this, please remember that mentions in passing, particularly in plot summaries, are not sufficient. What we need (and I failed to find) are sources discussing real world significance of this fictional concept - inspirations, influences, etc. The fact that this concept is mentioned often in the BSG show(s) doesn't make it notable, we need more than that. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep The Verge discussing planetary dynamics, Deseret News on 12 colonies = 12 tribes, Cylons in America appears to cover many aspects of life in the 12 colonies, Journal Article that does society compsrisons. So, that's four, in-depth sources primarily or substantially about the location/society from which BSG originates. There are, needless to say, thousands of simpler mentions. Jclemens ( talk) 18:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
    • The fact that it exists on Google doesn't suffice. We need more than a passing mention. The Deseret article is not about 12 colonies, it's an obituary of the story's creator, which mentions a number of fictional elements, and dedicates a single sentence to this fictional element, through granted, it is not just a plot description, but talks about the inspiration for the term. The Verge just notes that the 12 colonies are an interesting solar system, it is pretty much a discussion of the plot. The third source seems to only discuss TC as a plot element, and as such is not particularly helpful - it reads like a Battlestar Galactica Encyclopedia (or wikia). The last source you found seems similar to the second one - I see few sentences about the 12C, but it is pretty much a plot summary. All in all, I can see those sources would allow for maybe a referenced paragraph or two, fine for merging into the BG article section on background/universe, but I am still not convinced about stand-alone notability. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply
      • But you didn't find them, and you didn't merge it yourself. You yet again started an AfD without taking responsibility for other options. Jclemens ( talk) 18:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply
        • I did found some of them, and I believed and still do that they don't suffice to make this topic have stand-alone notability. It is a plot element with barely few sentences of real-world significance. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC) reply
          • If you found them, then you should have put them in your nomination. Wikipedia works on consensus, not on adversarialism like a court of law does--or at least it would, if you and others would actually collaborate by putting forth evidence that undermines your position. Since I've never seen you do this, I find it strains AGF to believe that yes, you found everything I did, reviewed them all, didn't mention a single one of them, and decided to AfD this anyways. Or, as we say in medicine, if you don't document it, it didn't happen. Jclemens ( talk) 06:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC) reply
            • Accusing another editor of lying is not just straining AGF, it is pure NPA. I am not going to engage in discussing editor motivations. If you want to discuss sources, we can continue, otherwise I don't see the point in creating a battleground. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC) reply
              • I agree, accusing another editor of lying is bad form. However, I think you misunderstand what I meant by the medical adage "if you don't document it, it didn't happen". That's not an accusation that you didn't do what you said what you did (which, if you read through my comment again, is NOT what I said you didn't do), but a notation that undocumented effort is pointless on several levels. The most proximate one is that if you did work and didn't report it, you damage the team by forcing other people to re-do work that you did. Secondarily, the patient (article, in this case) can be harmed by the omission of details about what was done. In this case, that means an article has potential, and you state that you withheld evidence that supported that potential. Only in a distant third case does it even come down to believability, that without contemporaneous notes there's no evidence that what was said to have been done after the fact had actually been done. For all those three reasons, if you do work and don't document it, it's arguably worse than not doing the work in the first place. Likewise, for all the same reasons, doing research in an AfD and not reporting it is against consensus and collegiality, and would fit well alongside the other anti-consensus behaviors listed at WP:TE. Jclemens ( talk) 07:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and merge in material from other articles. Artw ( talk) 17:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 11:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Aoba47: The problem here is that an article collecting what would be in effect non-notable content does not gain notability itself. You cannot combine X-number of non-notable topics and argue that the resulting article is notable. We do tend to ignore this problem with lists, but the universe of articles are really "asking for it". No strong prejudice to such a merge, but then we may meet here again... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Piotrus: We would have to cross that bridge when we get there. There appears to be some coverage on the Battlestar Galactica universe as a whole so a list may be appropriate so we will just have to see how that shakes out in the future, depending on whether or not users will actually look for sources and add them into the article. Either way, I do not believe that the article up for discussion passes notability standards and should either be redirected to a new list/article on the universe or the already existing page on the television show. I have no preference for one or the other, and I will completely understand if the closer for this AfD decides to redirect to the show page (if redirect is decided of course) rather than create a somewhat dubious new list or article. I hope this response helps somewhat, and I greatly appreciate that you asked me directly. I have to be honest, and say that some of the behavior in this discussion was a little disappointing. Aoba47 ( talk) 14:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:56, 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 delete. Can't really merge into an article that doesn't exist. Kurykh ( talk) 22:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Bernardo Soto Series 1889

Bernardo Soto Series 1889 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contains too little information to be of any encyclopedic value. No references. No links. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Costa Rica-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 10:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:55, 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. Actually, consensus to weakly delete, but I can't click the button any less hard.  Sandstein  11:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Alladi–Grinstead constant

Alladi–Grinstead constant (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In the absence of a statement as to what the value of the constant is, this has no encyclopedic value. (Inserting the value of the constant, sourced to a reliable source, will justify keeping the article. Apparently nothing short of AFD can get the author to insert the value.)

Also, no explanation of notability, such as discussion by other mathematicians. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. This appears to be a legitimately studied concept in mathematics, but a very obscure one. The original Alladi–Grinstead paper from 1977 has been cited 7 times in Google scholar, but none of those citations appear to constitute non-trivial in-depth coverage of this concept. The MathWorld coverage is in-depth-enough to count towards WP:GNG, but it's only one source, and I don't think we should automatically cover things just because MathWorld does. I found the phrase "Alladi–Grinstead constant" outside MathWorld only in one other paper, a recent unpublished preprint [13], which uses the constant in a formula rather than studying it in-depth. The phrase "Alladi-Grinstead" appears nowhere in MathSciNet. So I don't think this meets the standard of having multiple in-depth studies by multiple independent groups of researchers. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep, or perhaps better yet, merge the main points into the "Number theory" section of Factorial. As David Eppstein said, this is a legitimate topic, but very obscure; I myself hadn't heard of it until I came across a stub and tried to rewrite it in a way that I could understand, using the MathWorld article as a guide. Judging from the coverage I could find (a couple discussions in books; a MathWorld article, and a brief discussion in another; some entries in the OEIS), I'd say that it deserves mention, but it doesn't necessarily stand alone as an article. The important thing is not so much the constant itself, but the fact that partitions of factorials into prime powers can be studied, and that people have to some extent done so. (For example, the section in Guy's book includes it as one result among a few on the topic of writing n! as the product of n large factors, due to Erdős and others.) The numerical value of the constant was given in the Definition section, and I've now also included it in the lede, with a pointer to the OEIS entry for its decimal expansion. The question is now about the "value" in a conceptual sense, i.e., how important is this material to number theory? I tend to feel that if MathWorld has an article on it, and a couple books have sections that focus on it, Wikipedia ought to include it somewhere, but a whole article devoted to it may be the wrong way to go. On that note, we should also consider the page Lueroth constant, which is entirely redundant with this page (it's just the c we define in this article). The MathWorld page for it is just a redirect to their page for the Alladi–Grinstead constant. So, if this article is kept, then Lueroth constant should redirect to it; if Alladi–Grinstead constant is deleted, so should Lueroth constant. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 10:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:55, 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. Kurykh ( talk) 02:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Aalathoorile Ethiri Vettam

Aalathoorile Ethiri Vettam (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Movie was supposed to start production in 2013. No evidence that the movie began production. Fails WP:NFF. Also fails WP:GNG as well as no reliable sources have covered the movie. Jupitus Smart 09:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:55, 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. Kurykh ( talk) 02:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Geranium Homes

Geranium Homes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No obvious notability, failing WP:GNG -- David Tornheim ( talk) 09:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - This is an established home builder in Ontario, Canada. A basic Google search indicates that the name of the company and what it is building is mentioned frequently in reliable sources (usually in real estate sections of Ontario newspapers). Company executives have also been quoted in the news a few times for their expert opinion in articles about new homes and so forth. Note that WP:OUTCOMES states that "companies reported as significant subjects of news coverage are usually sufficiently notable". That being said, this article barely passes WP:ORGCRITE, which requires more than a single secondary source to support notability. After much searching, I could locate just two reliable secondary sources which talk about this company ( [14] [15]), and both sources had already been added to the article. Magnolia677 ( talk) 10:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Magnolia677 The sources you added fail to meet the criteria for establishing notability. This article from The Star is an advertorial and follows the usual format. It fails WP:ORGIND. The next article, also from The Star fails for the same reasons. In any case, please note that two independent secondary sources must be from different publications in any event. -- HighKing ++ 17:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:55, 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) 22:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Minto Group

AfDs for this article:
Minto 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)

No obvious notability; fails WP:GNG. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 09:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:55, 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. Kurykh ( talk) 02:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Abeg

Abeg (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per WP:NOTADICTIONARY — Insert CleverPhrase Here 08:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 17:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:54, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac ( talk) 21:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Bewaqoofian

Bewaqoofian (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no ref.. not notable.. blocked editor... India1277 ( talk) 05:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:54, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Jared Keylon

Jared Keylon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient notability, may have qualified for NFR, but no evidence that he meets GNG per sourcing and lack of accomplishments Montanabw (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:54, 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. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh ( talk) 02:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Ronnie's Redneck Road Trip

Ronnie's Redneck Road Trip (  | 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 show doesn't look notable; two of the three sources are the listed website of the show. KSFT ( t| c) 03:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete - I could only find a few independent sources for this show, and only two different events were covered—a marriage, and the fact that a retired boxer is on it. Overall, I think that these sources are not enough for an article. Additionally, the article is slightly promotional. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 01:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:54, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac ( talk) 20:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply

The Chipmunks See Doctor Dolittle

The Chipmunks See Doctor Dolittle (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just like some of the other Chipmunk album articles i've listed, this one only contains a lead, infobox, and a "Track listing" section. There are no sources whatsoever and no template at the beginning saying how long the article has been unsourced for. DBZFan30 ( talk) 02:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 ( talk) 02:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 ( talk) 02:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 ( talk) 02:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 ( talk) 02:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:54, 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. Kurykh ( talk) 02:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Romain Masson

Romain Masson (  | 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:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 05:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:54, 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. Kurykh ( talk) 22:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC) reply

BPM Energy

BPM Energy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources, fails gng Hawkeye75 (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:52, 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) 22:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Jeanne d'Arc Boulevard (Ottawa)

Jeanne d'Arc Boulevard (Ottawa) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local road with no sources beyond Google map link. WP:BEFORE finds no coverage in WP:RS. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:GEOROAD. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 12:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. All arterial roads are not automatically accepted as notable just because they exist, if the only source you can provide for them is a map and the only content you can create about them is a description of the road's physical route — to be considered notable, a road requires historical, political or social context, and reliable source coverage about the road to support that. Ottawa certainly has notable roads — Sussex Drive, Bank Street, Wellington Street, etc. — but there's no evidence being shown here that this would be one of them. And it's not that I lack personal familiarity with this road, either, as my aunt and uncle used to live in the exact neighbourhood in Orleans that Jeanne d'Arc was the exact turnoff from the Queensway to get to. Bearcat ( talk) 16:57, 21 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) 22:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

John Pounds Centre

John Pounds Centre (  | 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 center with most coverage only being local. Meatsgains ( talk) 12:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:39, 21 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) 02:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Ayrton Simmons

Ayrton Simmons (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another driver who fails WP:NMOTORSPORT and WP:GNG criteria. Corvus tristis ( talk) 12:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:41, 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) 22:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Alex Quinn (racing driver)

Alex Quinn (racing driver) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another driver who fails WP:NMOTORSPORT and WP:GNG criteria. Corvus tristis ( talk) 12:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:42, 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. Kurykh ( talk) 02:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Linus Lundqvist

Linus Lundqvist (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another driver who fails WP:NMOTORSPORT and WP:GNG criteria. Corvus tristis ( talk) 12:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:44, 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. The point raised by the keep-! voters that there are sources that address something called "National liberalism"; which is different from liberal nationalism or Civic nationalism--is a solid argument.The opposers have failed to convince the discussants to the contrary. ( non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 05:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

National liberalism

AfDs for this article:
National liberalism (  | 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 didn't improve since 2009, and I can't find any reliable source that say that National liberalism is diferent than Liberal nationalism ( Civic nationalism), the sources that I found use national liberalism with the same concept of liberal nationalism, it seems that is a synonymous, but I can be wrong. I think it should be redirect to Civic nationalism. For example, in the source " Verlag C.H. Beck, Germany from Napoléon to Bismarck, 1800-1866, Princeton University Press" is only used once and as a synonymous. The source that was added by E.M.Gregory, The Edinburgh Companion to Contemporary Liberalism, use the term national liberalism but its talking about the ideology liberal nationalism like Mark Evans says in the page 71. These seems to be a WP:SYNTHESIS and as the policy says, it combines "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." If you read the sources completely as a whole, none of these talk about an ideology. As is pointed bellow, a lot of unsourced material was tried to be push in the article. What is sourced are WP:PRIMARY comments of some researchers, and along with the use of the term by some parties the article try to pass it as an ideology. I suggest that the editors read and verify by themselves what the sources state. Rupert Loup ( talk) 11:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Asserting that an article has not improved substantively since 2009 is a very poor justification for starting an AfD on a 19th Century topic that closed as keep after a well-attended AfD in 2009. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • loup, it is bad form to expand the rationale for deletion in mid discussion. If you have something to add, please do it in a clearly separate edit. However, it is inept to take the edited collection of essays and, instead of citing the essay or page (273) that I cited, cite an entirely different essay on page 71, and accuse me of misrepresenting the passage I was citing. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
I didn't accused you of anything. I don't know what you're talking about. Rupert Loup ( talk) 22:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
I'm going to put here what I stated in the article's talk page: Some times the term is used as a synonymous of liberal nationalism, this is because the term is not a real ideology and we can give it the meaning that we want according with the circumstances.
In this source presented by Checco, Göran B. Nilsson talks about national liberalism and compare it with cosmopolitan liberalism, again like in some of the other sources, he is talking about the regional variant in contrast with the worldwide variant. There is no a cohesive ideology with particulars dogmas. There isn't also a cosmopolitan liberalism per se. There are just terms. There are terms that researchers use to label the parties and academics of the time. Like the sources state there were liberals and nationalist, or that is how they describe themselves. Some were nationalist, liberal, libertarians or socialist. If there were nationalist and liberals then they called them national liberals. As James Alfred Aho states, they had very different ideas. He use the term "mind set" to talk about the ideas that German liberals had at the time. It's logical that they need to use the term so in that way the reader could understand of what their talk about. Again, is not a distinct ideology is a term and the meaning vary with the circumstances in which is used as noted before. Sometimes is used to refer to the indigenous liberalism, other time as a synonymous, other to refer at the nationalism and liberalism of the time. No one agrees that it is an ideology or what it constitutes this ideology. There is no a scholarly consensus. And the term is used loosely. All the sources presented here use the term few times. Later use nationalism or liberalism. Is not a notable term by any means. Rupert Loup ( talk) 23:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. Clearly, "national liberalism" and "liberal nationalism" are different concepts, similarly to conservative liberalism and liberal conservatism: while the former are variants of liberalism, the latter are variants of nationalism. As I wrote eight years ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National liberalism (the result of the discussion was keep, after seven users opposed the deletion with quite good arguments and only who favoured it), "en.Wiki has plenty of articles about sub-ideologies (see Category:Political ideologies) and many branches of liberalism (see Category:Liberalism)" and "national liberalism is a historical brand of liberalism typical of some German-speaking countries, but the term has been used also recently. The subject clearly deserves an article in en.Wiki, but, while the current one already includes good sources, it could be great improved. Please let's not delete it. -- Checco ( talk) 11:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Do you have a source for that? Rupert Loup ( talk) 11:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
All that I wrote is quite self-evident. And it should also be noted that other 22 Wikis have articles on the subject. -- Checco ( talk) 06:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
No, it's not, without sources is original research and doesn't have place in Wikipedia. Rupert Loup ( talk) 07:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The article can (and should) be improved and expanded upon, of course, but it needs to continue to exist to do so. Liberal nationalism is a separate, different concept to national liberalism (as it national conservatism, may I add) and it would be misleading to conflate the two under the same article.-- Autospark ( talk) 13:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Again, do you have a source for that? I'm genuinely asking. Rupert Loup ( talk) 18:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
In what way? Did they say what national liberalism is and how is diferent of liberal nationalism? The first source only mention it three times and says that were used as synonymous of german nationalism. But didn't explain what it is or what is the diference with liberal nationalism. The second source didn't mention national liberalism at all. Rupert Loup ( talk) 18:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Loup, you cannot claim that the source (Dalton on JSTOR) are inadequate, then, when I begin adding material form Dalton to the page, complain in your edits that you have no access to it because of a paywall. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
I didn't claim nothing about Dalton, I was talking about Heinrich H. Maure and Peter Uwe Hohendahl. That are the sources that shows in the search. And you mean Dutton. [16] That talks about the Liberal Nationals in the preview. Also what you are adding says that is a term. Not a distinct ideology. Rupert Loup ( talk) 20:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • My apology, the first 2 items on my JSTOR search were Dalton (I have not read that article yet, it's about the Natinoal Liberals in Walse, U.K.) and Kurunmaki, Jussi. (“On the Difficulty of Being a National Liberal in Nineteenth-Century Finland.” Contributions to the History of Concepts, vol. 8, no. 2, 2013, pp. 83–95., www.jstor.org/stable/43610946.) I was referring to Kirumaki. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Hohendahl says," This very aim-to exploit Schiller's dramas for national liberalism brought the conservatives into the picture." IOW German liberals claimed Schiller as one of their own. By "national liberalism" he means "German liberalism" and elsewhere in the text refers to them as liberals without qualification. TFD ( talk) 00:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
TFD, that is from the JSTOR search? I searched for national liberalism here and nothing shows. Am I doing something wrong? Rupert Loup ( talk) 21:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Rupert Loup, sorry not to answer earlier. The article is "The Literary Canon of the Nachmärz" and your link shows it. But you can click on the link to JSTOR at the top of this page. The article is open access. TFD ( talk) 07:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC) reply
TFD, found it. It's mention once. Yes I concur, in the books that I read, the term "national" it's just used to refer the autochthonous liberalism of a country or as a synonymous of liberal nationalism. Not as a particular ideology. If you read the sources of the article, every party has a diferent way of see "national liberalism". It's not an ideology with common caracteristics. Like in this used source. Rupert Loup ( talk) 08:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Other example here, that is used to source the content "Gordon Smith understands national liberalism as a political concept that lost popularity when the success of nationalist movements in creating nation states rendered it no longer necessary to specify that a liberal ideal, party or politician was "national."", Emil J. Kirchner only use the term 3 times, and not to define it as "political concept". Then just use liberalism or nationalism. There is no sings of a specific ideology. And doesn't explain what are the ideals or philosophy of this so-called ideology. He use it to refer to the specific liberalism of Switzerland. In fact he states that "some are national based, other are regional parties. Rupert Loup ( talk) 12:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Loup, I now see that earlier in the AfD process you deleted a substantial amount of WP:RS WP:SIGCOV from the article. and repeated the action after being reverted. I don't know what game you're playing here, but please cut it out. Furthermore, sources like books and academic journals do not require verification simply because you cannot access them. They are valid sources even if a particular scholarly source is not public access. Other example is here that is used to source the content "Gordon Smith understands national liberalism as a political concept that lost popularity when the success of nationalist movements in creating nation states rendered it no longer necessary to specify that a liberal ideal, party or politician was "national."", Emil J. Kirchner only use the term 3 times, and not to define it as "political concept" E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Because don't mention national liberalism. I checked them. And I can't check the sources that you added, that's why I'm asking for verifications. Who says that they not requiere verification? can you give me the policy that says that? E.M.Gregory, please see WP:VERIFY. Rupert Loup ( talk) 21:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • It is, however, irregular to mass-delete sources that look reliable during an AfD. Adding small corrections to a deletion that you have just made so that it cannot be reverted and taken to talk will inevitably make it appear that you have a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. I advise you to revert all of the many the deletions you have made during this AfD, then justify each on the talk page so that other editors can assess them and come to a consensus about what material should be kept in the article. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • As per WP:AGF, we assume that an article adding a source to a page has verified it unless we carefully read the source and specify (in a comment, or on the talk page) exactly why that editor was mistaken. You can demonstrate good faith by restoring the citation to a university press book that you just deleted along with all of the other reliably sourced material that you have improperly deleted from this article. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
WP:NOTAFORUM, this is not the correct place to disscuss that. Also I alredy told you that I won't going to re add sources that doesn't talk about national liberalism or in this case are incoplete and fail verification. You used a non-english source that doesn't have pages to cite a content. Can you quote it and give me a page? Checco can you point where in the page given in the sources that I deleted it talk about national liberalism? because Checco said that indeed mentioned it. I don't assume bad faith, I stick to the facts. Rupert Loup ( talk) 02:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
I fear you are actually assuming bad faith, when removing parts of the article as well as sources which have been there for years (and were not included by me, but by other users, by the way). There is an ongoing discussion and I would wait for its end before editing the article: while there have been definitely improvements (thanks especially to User:E.M.Gregory), some removed parts should be re-included. That is what I am going to do. Otherwise, people can say that there is "no definition" in the article (see below). -- Checco ( talk) 06:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Ps: I answered to your message in my talk page at Talk:National liberalism. There is no need of using talk pages, while we are already discussing.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm asking for sources. The article has being tagged since 2012. I removed the unsourced material citing WP:OR and you deliberately re added it without citations. And stated that the sources mention national liberalism, which they not. Thats vandalism and you are doing it again. Rupert Loup ( talk) 07:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
I think that what you are doing is vandalism and that you are totally not interested in consensus. However, this discussion is on the notability of "national liberalism": the article's content can be discussed at Talk:National liberalism. -- Checco ( talk) 07:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or merge to National Liberal Party (Germany). As I pointed out at the last AfD, there is no ideology called "national liberalism" and no definition is given in the article. The term normally refers to the National Liberal Party (Germany), which called itself that because it was a liberal party organized on a natioal level. See for example the first hit on Google books, The Splintered Party: National Liberalism in Hessen and the Reich, 1867-1918: "The National Liberal Party...was one of the two genuinely national parties of its day." (p. 1) [17] Most of the article is sourced to an article called, “On the Difficulty of Being a National Liberal in Nineteenth-Century Finland.” Other authors do not use that term, see for example The Evolution of Electoral and Party Systems in the Nordic Countries The term is not used in the book. TFD ( talk) 00:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
*That redirect won't work, not least because this term does not "normally" refer to any single party. Many countries have had important national liberal parties. Including many called National Liberal Party. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note that this is a concept that was at the height of its popularity in the 1800s, and that like Wikipedia itself google searches have a presentism problem, gSearches, including gBooks searches, bring recent sources to the top, making the wider use of the term in term a century ago difficult for editors running searches to perceive. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
There are lots of out of copyright books from the 19th century and early 20the century texts available in full on Google Books and other sites. See Guido De Ruggiero's History of European Liberalism] (1927), which is still considered a leading text. It does not mention national liberalism. Lots of books by Austrian School liberals, such as Carl Menger (1840-1921), Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek are also available. Since the Wikipedia article says that national liberalism was the major liberal ideology in Austria, they should have mentioned it. Nothing in Mises' Liberalism (1927) or the other writers. The works of Karl Marx (1818-1883) are also available on line. He was German and wrote about the National Liberal Party and liberalism, but did not identify a national liberal ideology. No mention either in Left Liberals, the State, and Popular Politics in Wilhelmine Germany, The Ashgate Research Companion to Imperial Germany or Anthony Arblaster's The Rise and Decline of Western Liberalism (1986) which is considered the most important history of liberalism since De Ruggiero.
In any case, lack of sources necessary to write an informative article is a reason not to have an article. None have been found in the last 8 years. Maybe at some point sources will become available and someone can write the article again. But in the meantime, it is uninformative and useless.
TFD ( talk) 16:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • WP:HEYMANN improvements by USER:Checco answers all objections raised by Nom and by other editors. I strongly suggest that the next experienced editor coming to this page close the discussion on the strength of the HEYMANN preventing Nom from yet another round of WP:DISRUPTive deletions that serve only as the kind of annoyance that drives good editors away. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
    • I am still not seeing a topic, just an observation that there are unrelated parties called " National Liberal." I would expect to see at least one source that defined national liberalism and explained the connection of national liberals in the various countries in the article. TFD ( talk) 17:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
I concur with TFD, there just a series of parties that use the term. And also a lot of unsourced material was added. Now it's a WP:SYNTHESIS, using the primary comments of some researchers and the term use by some parties to pass it as an ideology. WP:HEY is an essay, not a policy. Rupert Loup ( talk) 20:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Alright, so different writers define liberalism and socialism differently, although in each case political scientists have been able to identify the core elements in common. Among the core elements of liberalism is the "pursuit individual/economic freedom and national sovereignty," which is the definition provided for national liberalism. There are no liberals who oppose freedom or national sovereignty. Could you please provide one book or even one article about the concept of "national liberalism." If you cannot, then it fails "Notability" It has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources." ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention." TFD ( talk) 22:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Repeating my request that the next editor coming to this page close this discussion as keep. Nom, who had been making repeated mass deletions of text has been blocked for 24-hours. It is my hope that with the AfD closed it will be possible to resolve any remaining issues at talk, as suggested at AN/I. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC) reply
I don't know what you are talking about. The article still is a WP:SYNTHESIS, and the sources state that as I said. Nothing has changed. Rupert Loup ( talk) 16:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • No, it's not. The article, and the additions under discussion on the talk page, show that there is scholarly discussion of an ideology of "national liberalism," and that a series of major political parties formed around this ideology in the 19th century. This is not to say that the article is perfect, only that the topic is notable. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply
In the talk page no one of the sources talk about an ideology, the parties had its respective different ideologies that go from nationalism, liberalism and socialism, they use the term to describe themselves but its ideologies had nothing in common in one another. There is not a cohesive ideology in any of the sources. Also, the comments of the researchers on the subject are primary, again you are doing a WP:SYNTHESIS. Rupert Loup ( talk) 20:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Loup, Please do not make major changes to a comment that you make earlier in the discussion, as you have just done. Doing this after the discussion has moved on is regarded as a disruption of the process. Reason, is, once the discussion moves on, changes to a comment can give a misleading impression about the comments other editors were responding to. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Yes, this behaviour is quite exacerbating. Additionally, this is a discussion on the notability of the subject "national liberalism", everything else has to be discussed in the article's talk page. I also think that this discussion could be closed as keep, per the reasons mentioned by E.M.Gregory above. -- Checco ( talk) 07:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply
I don't know what are you talking about, there is no policy or guide that says that I can't do that. I didn't modify my previous comment. It's the reason that I state for the AfD. Rupert Loup ( talk) 20:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Modifications that were added after discussion had moved on here: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. Out of time for now, although I have only gone through part of this AfD. There may well be more examples. Loup, the point is that changing a comment or a Nom after other editors have responded confounds the possibility of reasoned discussion, which is our rules forbid it. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: In response to the AN/I phrase or that an editor would close the AfD (this dispute regards political ideal popular in the 1800s that was kept after a previous AfD discussion.), this debate cannot be ( non-admin closure) as SNOW KEEP because of the significant delete !votes. It cannot be closed as no consensus because it is only two days old and hasn't attracted enough attention, so it will probably have to be relisted. Thanks, d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 12:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I perceive a moment, or, rather, a series of moments in many central European countries in the 19th century when national liberalism was an ideology; I source such a moment in Germany just before unification above. I see "national liberalism" as a significant 19th concept, a view validated by the selection of the term as the name of a series of major political parties. In addition, "national liberalism" has been have recurred to by significant contemporary figures, and discussed extensively in the writings as Prime Minister József Antall. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 09:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
See the talk page of the article. National liberalism is a synonymous of liberal nationalism. Is used in that way in most of the sources. József Antall is described as liberal nationalist [29]. There are various sources that describe clearly what liberal nationalism is, like this example, and there is none that explain in what consist national liberalism. Rupert Loup ( talk) 13:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
WP:TENDENTIOUS is an essay. This is a discution page. I'm who is being accused of bad faith for presenting arguments. The first AfD is irrelevant to this. I stated in the talk page that the sources use the term as a synonymous of Liberal nationalism with examples. Also it was discussed how all the sources doesn't state what national liberalism is or what advocate. Please, care to elaborate why this article should be a keep. What is National liberalism and how is notable to have an article? I already state my arguments. I'm curious of what are yours. Rupert Loup ( talk) 20:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and note that the OP, having failed to get his way, is now retired. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The sources I've looked at (from the article) do appear to be addressing something called "National liberalism", and it does appear to be a different thing to what is described by the sources at Civic nationalism. And the OP's statement "I can't find any reliable source that say that National liberalism is diferent than Liberal nationalism (Civic nationalism), the sources that I found use national liberalism with the same concept of liberal nationalism, it seems that is a synonymous, but I can be wrong" appears to be OR - essentially "They seem the same to me, and we don't have a source explicitly saying they're different". By that reasoning, I doubt we have a source that explicitly says blue whales aren't cabbages, but we wouldn't direct one to the other on that basis - to assume two things are synonymous, we'd need sources that explicitly say they're the same, not an absence of sources that say they're different. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 13:11, 22 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) 02:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Uhuru (wholefoods shop)

Uhuru (wholefoods shop) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of sustained notability. CSD WP:A7 declined because previous version of article contains a book source, so significance might exist. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 08:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

I'll add at least one more reference - possibly two soon - as far as I am aware the shop still exists and it was a significant player in the early days of the wholefoods / what came to be Fairtrade movements. Johnrcrellin ( talk) 07:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC) reply

May not be notable as an establishment now but surely merits an entry for its place in the history of the wholefoods / fairtrade movement? Johnrcrellin ( talk) 21:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:34, 21 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 List of Star Wars characters#E. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Emperor's Royal Guard

Emperor's Royal Guard (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable fictional entity; all sources present and that I can find are in-universe plot summaries or merchandise (action figure/etc.) description. I would suggest a merge but I cannot think of a valid target, plus there is really nothing to say - Palpatine article may mention he has special guards, but I don't see a reason we should describe them in more detail anywhere (of course, no prejudice to anyone who figures out where to merge this and does so). But as a stand-alone article, I don't think it is encyclopedic. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect: Since I am on my iPad more so than a computer, it gets a little tough to edit even if I do have proof when it comes to finding sources. That's what happened then. I am struggling just typing already. I came across list articles at the time ranking them but I am not sure I could still find them though. That was a while back! Also when I did get more active it was in proving notability in different articles like here, here and here. Meanwhile I am still more speculative that the first aliens depicted don't have their own articles than these cameoed characters that were much cooler in Legends. Anyways nice savage Ghostbusters reference, Eemiv. lol Jhenderson 777 21:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

South Essex Rapid Transit

South Essex Rapid Transit (  | 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:GNG. proposed project that never happened. and the coverage is very limited to justify an article. LibStar ( talk) 07:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I've found this (written or updated 27 Jul 2016) and this (written or updated 28 Jan 2015) which seems to indicate it's still going ahead / continuing however as noted above there's barely any sources and information to justify an article, Obviously I found a few sources ranging from 2009-2011 saying it's going ahead however they're kinda useless as nearly 10 years on no one seems to know anything, In short even if it isn't going ahead it's still non notable and there's no recent sources to justify an article. – Davey2010 Talk 13:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:53, 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) 22:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Country Game

Country Game (  | 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 notable ( WP:N). This game as a named event has received negligible non-routine coverage ( WP:ROUTINE), and this particular piece of routine coverage [30] makes clear that the game is not even considered to be an annual event – just a two-time ad hoc event that might one day become annual ( WP:CRYSTAL). Aspirex ( talk) 07:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:29, 21 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. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 16:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Mia Malkova

AfDs for this article:
Mia Malkova (  | 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 subject of this article "may" not meet the guidelines for notability. Scenicview1 ( talk) 19:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1 reply

I'm not an expert in articles of deletion but it appears this article was under consideration, at one point in the past. I'm submitting this again under 2nd nomination. Since there are clearly not many reliable sources and only one major award given. The AVN, XRCO, and XBIZ awards were not one of the major categories of awards given. Only one separte award from AVN meets the standard of a major award, which was the Best New Starlet award. For Reference number 4, there is no clickable entry to verify this reference. Reference 2 and 5 is debatable as to whether a Twistys award or mention of an award, is worthy of inclusion. Reference 6 is clearly written from a blog, not as reliable as the Adult DVD Talk interview. [1] The blog indicated in Reference 6 looks like a minor, opinionated and unverified source clearly from a blog, as stated. Written in extremely simplified terms, with photographs attached, from a blog that usually does not write about adult performers. In fact, if you read the article up to near the end, it is jokingly insinuated that it looks like a porn production. The photographs could be for a video, for all we know. There is also no certificate of authenticity to verify what was going on in the photographs. Just someone who writes a blog that does not usually involve adult performers. It also lists a twitter account as proof, but who is to know whether that is real. It may have been created just for this blog site. [2] The name mentioned as her friend, under the career section, is also unverified. Finally, when you click on Reference 8, you are lead to an error page, with no verifiable information provided. I'm a fan of Mia Malkova, but seriously wonder if one major AVN Award under the Best New Starlet award category, deserves an article or profile on wikipedia. There is also a lack of personal information in regard to her profile. Understandable, perhaps, given the industry she is in. Mentioning a Twisty award of the month or Twisty award of the year, is questionable since this is not a major award or may be debatable as such. Whether it deserves even a mention in her article page, with only one verifiable reliable source, is also questionable at best. I do not want a deletion, but if someone may provide more information, references, etc. and more awards, rather than just one major award, then please add that information. Otherwise, consideration for deletion may be possible. This article does not meet established guidelines of WP:PORNBIO If it does meet it, then it is meeting only one established guideline. Scenicview1 ( talk) 19:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1 reply

References

  1. ^ Jack, Captain. "Pornstar Interviews by Captain Jack". Adult DVD Talk.
  2. ^ Covucci, David. "People Who Do It on Camera For Money Can Find Love". Bro Blog.
  • Correction. It appears to meet at least one established guideline or possibly two for WP:PORNBIO. Under the category of the AVN award for Best New Starlet and XBIZ award for Best Actress in a Feature Release production.

We may still leave this open to debate. I still think someone or people involved with putting up her profile on wikipedia, need to find better References or ones that are more legitimate, considering the number of performances she has done. It shouldn't be hard to find interviews, news stories, biographies, topics, etc., related to her online, unless she kept things mostly private. At least, if possible, replace Reference 8 which leads to an error page. I have no disagreement if the decision is made to keep her profile or article, considering that it appears she has won at least two Awards, one from AVN and one from XBIX, in different recognized categories. Scenicview1 ( talk) 21:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1 reply


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply


  • Neutral Keep - at the moment I reserve judgement but will continue to monitor and research the topic. Given the industry in which she is involved and it's status in society, it may be hard to come by reliable third party references due to the aversion to the subject matter by most mainstream publications. I initially clicked on this AfD discussion because the name itself was immediately familiar to me despite my initial inability to place it. It may be difficult to assess notability on this particular individual and some thought should be given towards assessing how she and similar persons in this field are vetted and also how notability for such persons has been established in the past. unak 1978 20:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Upon further perusal, apparently my particular concerns are not unfounded, nor has it not been discussed before. Criteria for notability in this particular field should follow WP:PORNBIO. I will look into the discussion and this criteria in order to offer a more informed opinion. unak 1978 20:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Per the discussion and consensus from those on the WikiProject Pornography, there seems to be ample consensus that singular award wins were enough to establish notability. In addition, the AVN and XRCO awards are specifically mentioned as being highly regarded enough to establish notability in this field. She's won two AVN awards and one XRCO, albeit all in the same calendar year, that's a separate discussion since they have not determined longevity to be a determinant. Based specifically on the accepted guidelines, as well as the supported references documenting those awards, I'm comfortable with keeping this article. unak 1978 20:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
This argument is seriously misinformed. The cited discussion page, [[ Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors), has been moribund for a decade, because the separate SNG has been subsumed into the broader guideline for people. The issues the poster describes as "not discussed before" have been discussed at length and resolved at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). In particular, the idea "that singular award wins were enough to establish notability" is blied by repeated discussions, including the most recent one still visible on that talk page. The Wikiproject has no authority to set standards in that area, and the broader community has settled, by strong and repeated consensus, on stricter standards. Unak 78, I hope you will take the time to review the current and recent discussions on the general subject, including some formal RfCs, and recognize the error in your argument. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 21:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment - Please modify your tone. The opening in particular. If you want to discuss my opinion with me, you can do so in a respectful manner and I'd be happy to revisit it. However I choose not to become engaged in a snark contest. If you take issue with this, then contact an administrator regarding my current stance and I will answer for this. Otherwise you're welcome restate your issue with my opinion in a more civil manner or debate it with one of the other editors here. I will not respond again to another comment with a similarly worded header. Thank you. unak 1978 22:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply
No. There is nothing uncivil about pointing out that your argument ignores the current consensus about application of the pertinent SNG. What is uncivil is your posturing that pointing out gross errors in your argument is disrespectful. You show no respect for other editors when you refuse to respond to well-earned criticism. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 02:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I agree with your statement completely, that due to the nature of the business, there may increasingly be issues of privacy involved. This in turn leads to the lack of specific facts and data, other than major and acclaimed Awards being given. I mentioned this in regard to another debate about another adult performer on wikipedia. Although that performer had done a number of different online interviews with various adult internet sites and even on youtube. If a performer has a residence in a certain city and enjoys playing at a local tennis court for instance, and that is discussed in a biography or interview, for example, that may lead to invasion of privacy or unwanted knowledge of that particular performer. Even if the residence is known but not the specific tennis court. Nowadays, the performer unfortunately may leave out those specific details and stick with more topics of her profession. Due to the explicit nature discussed, it would also not necessarily be included in a very open profile on wikipedia as well. Since the awards are held yearly, those who acquire the top award from each major adult show, should probably deserve a mention and one or two photographs of the performer on the profile or article on this site. Also given that minor mainstream television or movie actresses and actors are given more recognition, in some cases starring in a minor role, on this site as well, it would only be fair to just include the few Award winners in the adult industry each year, who deserve being recognized. Even in cases where they only won one major Award from a recognized Adult Award show. Scenicview1 ( talk) 22:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1 reply
    • Comment - Yes, this particular set of SNG guidelines are pretty broad by Wikipedia standards and the parties responsible for establishing consensus on the subject could do well to establish further guidelines. However there is no simple solution for an industry that is, by nature, as selectively publicized as this one is. More work should be done on the entire issue, however I felt it necessary to take into account how issues of privacy affect how members of the industry may aspire to control just how much content exists about them in the media. Even some of the more notable members do not always provide accurate personal information and take steps to ensure that such is not available anywhere online where it might easily be accessed. Even a Wikipedia article such as this might find itself at odds with the very performer that it pertains to for being too accurate with certain information depending on how and where it was obtained. unak 1978 18:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. This is another case where the performer has won a significant award but the sources are low quality. This is a technical PORNBIO pass with AVN Best New Starlet and the XBiz Best Actress (feature) wins. However, there is nothing near significant coverage by independent reliable sources here. The porn trade press coverage appears to be the usual republished press releases. No legitimate claim of passing WP:BASIC. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 03:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- none of the keep voters have shown how this subject meets GNG. A technical SNG pass is not a pass for a content-free article. Redirect to the AVN Awards page then. For comparison, please see:
K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment - Please elaborate. Is the issue the amount of content/direct references in this article or how notability is established by the author per WP:PORNBIO? The issues that this particular topic carries seems to require a nuanced approach, but I would prefer to be better informed if possible. You could be helpful in that regard. unak 1978 23:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 05:25, 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) 22:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Arif Mahmud Kisana

Arif Mahmud Kisana (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

an autobio by a SPA. no coverage in RS. he may have authored a few books but none is notable. cited sources are self published. Saqib ( talk) 05:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:27, 21 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. As a group, for now. Individual films can be renominated.  Sandstein  14:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Violent Shit

Violent Shit (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Violent Shit II: Mother Hold My Hand (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Violent Shit III (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nikos the Impaler (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Karl the Butcher vs. Axe (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These all seem to fail WP:NFILM. Horrornews.net and Birth Movies Death do not appear to be WP:RS. Fangoria is reliable, but the source covers only an in-name-only sequel.

The only sources for the second movie also appear to be self published. The third film, along with Nikos the Impaler and Karl the Butcher vs. Axe, have no other sources besides IMDb, and I could find no other sourcing whatsoever for any of them.

Delete all for failing the film notabilities. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 22:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 03:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:52, 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. Kurykh ( talk) 02:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Genius Nochang

Genius Nochang (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No text and no indication of musical notability. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:51, 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. czar 01:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Raphaël Colantonio

Raphaël Colantonio (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While some of his games are notable, there is no independent coverage of the person to establish biographic notability. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge to Arkane Studios When this article was created (linked to from another article I was working on) I added four references I had used elsewhere that were interviews and discussions with Colantonio about him and his background in making Arkane. I think there's enough in these to expand to a full article, but I also see that most of his notability is tied to Arkane (he worked elsewhere before but that's more a side bit relative to his time with Arkane), so merging with redirection to Arkane Studios also works. -- MASEM ( t) 14:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – does not appear to independently meet the relevant notability criteria. Lacking in-depth coverage in a breadth of reliable secondary sources. Citobun ( talk) 14:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MASEM ( t) 14:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 17:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply
C'mon @ Hahnchen, I don't have to cite WP:OTHERSTUFF, do I? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply
I'm not arguing that this should be kept because "other stuff" exists. I argued it should be kept on it's own merits, and then I suggested other things you should delete. - hahnch e n 11:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply
You're voting keep, saying it has enough sources, but at the same time suggesting that we delete articles about other video game designers. You don't have to do that last part. I could be wrong, but to me, that reads like WP:WHATABOUTX. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Undoubtedly notable, how? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Involved is significant video games. Plenty of sources in a quick BEFORE - both news and books. Many are passing, yes, but there are enough hits it is hard to filter out the passing ones. Icewhiz ( talk) 20:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Icewhiz That Colantonio is involved with making significant video games does not make him notable necessarily, per WP:INHERIT. The subject of the article has to be notable by itself. You're saying "it's hard to filter out the passing ones", how so? Have you checked the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine? Type in "raphaël colantonio" and you'll get some results. For me, in my opinion, an interview with him about his work, him being mentioned in the context of his works or about the studio he works at is not significant coverage about the person Colantionio. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply
I see lots of items also in the custom google search you linked (which I admit I haven't tried before). Hard to filter out in the sense that when you have a large bunch of passing mentions (which is to a certain extent an indication of notability) - going over them takes time. But here are a few non-passing items that aren't in the article: [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]. If he has an independent professional persona from the firm(s) he's involved with - meeting GNG - that's OK. You don't have to have coverage of his favorite color or kids (or lack thereof). Icewhiz ( talk) 08:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply
As well as 3 pages full of google-books results - [37] - Most of them without preview access (even snippet) unfortunately - too new. Icewhiz ( talk) 08:30, 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 speedy deleted. by User:DGG. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Autocracy under Donald Trump

Autocracy under Donald Trump (  | 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 article blatantly violates NPOV and BLP. Clearly, this article was written by someone who greatly dislikes President Donald Trump and was meant to defame him. SMP0328. ( talk) 04:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 04:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 04:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete "The United States was downgraded from full democracy to flawed democracy." I didn't realize that there was an official rating of countries' democracy levels, and one run by US Today no less. None of the three references use the term autocracy, autocrat, autocratic or any other such term. It appears that the creator of the article has decided Trump has been behaving autocratically and thus we need said article. Meters ( talk) 04:47, 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) 22:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Ryder Skye

Ryder Skye (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unremarkable adult actress. Significant RS coverage not found. Article cited to interviews, online directories, industry PR materials, personal web site and other unsuitable sources.

Award listed (Best Cumback) is not significant; the rest are nominations. Article delves into trivial and personal details such as the subject's breast augmentation surgery and other similar aspect's of the subject's biography. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:58, 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) 22:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Ali Zaidi (online entrepreneur)

Ali Zaidi (online entrepreneur) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobio of non-notable blogger. Fails WP:CREATIVE, WP:GNG, no significant coverage online from WP:RS apart from a 2009 profile in local paper Daily Herald (Arlington Heights) from when he was a teenager. Uncle Roy ( talk) 03:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy ( talk) 03:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy ( talk) 03:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy ( talk) 03:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy ( talk) 03:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:39, 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 Procedural close – article already WP:CSD'ed by Woody as per WP:A7. ( non-admin closure) -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 18:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Andrew Bernie Wilson

Andrew Bernie Wilson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per the PROD by JamesG5: "Article about a person who does not appear to meet WP:GNG, part of a flurry of articles created by the same editor to promote a studio that's trying to be successful at animation. All related articles have been PRODed, speedied, or are at AfD. This doesn't appear Wikipedia ready".

PROD removed by article creator. Sky Warrior 02:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sky Warrior 02:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Sky Warrior 02:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
NOTE - After doing a bit more digging here and at the other article WP:Articles for deletion/Clyde and Willis (animated series) this is <<redacted>> using a game platform to make YouTube videos. All the references given for "deals" to buy the show do not check out. Andrew's YouTube has just over 100 subscribers and barely 2000 views. The new editor below suggesting "keep" shows by his edits he's another Roblox user in the friends group. Contrary to claims made that Andrew is "infamous" or that "He's famous. Everyone is." he does not appear to meet WP:GNG. JamesG5 ( talk) 15:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
NOTE The above editor campaigning for a delete is making false claims. He suggests that I know andrew which I do not. He is assuming that by the age of the person that the article is about that he is not notable. This is called age discrimination. Also they are participating in subscribercount discrimination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aca rblx ( talk • contribs) 17:25, 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 speedy Delete. Per WP:A10, G12 by User:J.smith (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Sulforaphane and Its Effects on Cancer, Mortality, Aging, Brain and Behavior, Heart Disease & More

Sulforaphane and Its Effects on Cancer, Mortality, Aging, Brain and Behavior, Heart Disease & More (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be copied and pasted from somewhere, if not original research, and seems to cover many topics. Duplication of article content located at User:AboutHalfFull. Home Lander ( talk) 00:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Not all of it is COPYVIO, as far as I can tell, but enough of it that at a minimum it needs to be blanked. (Example: the entire section on triglycerides is verbatim from the Mayo Clinic web site.) It is unclear to me why we need an article on the health effects of this drug independent of the article we already have on the drug itself, and the current namespace doesn't need to be preserved as a redirect, as nobody is going to use that abomination in a search. Agricolae ( talk) 01:48, 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 merge to Pyramid (game show). Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

$100,000 Pyramid (video game)

$100,000 Pyramid (video game) (  | 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 found no significant coverage for this video game. I managed to find a review of a video game with the same name that was based on the same game show, but I can't find anything for this 1987 video game. SL93 ( talk) 00:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 00:28, 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_May_15&oldid=1142617957"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE