Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 9 October 11 October >

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 redirect to Copyright. Seems like there is equal support for deletion or redirection, if fine tuning is needed it can happen at WP:RFD which is custom made for "redirect vs. nothing" decisions. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 18:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Copyright protection

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

Effectively a WP:TWODABS page with a clear primary topic by historical importance, copyright. Reference to technology used to protect copyrights can be addressed in a hatnote. bd2412 T 00:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete without redirect. WP:RFD might have been a better venue, but never mind.
I would not be shocked by a redirect to copyright, either, but if we do that, then we need a hatnote at the copyright article, which ( ceteris paribus) will slightly blot the page. I think it is one of the cases where deleting completely will save a bit on the hatnote, and not lose much (since a search result will easily point the reader to adequate articles). Tigraan Click here to contact me 10:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

The Island That All Flow By

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

Searches turned up very little, and certainly not enough to pass WP:GNG. Was deprodded without rationale or improvement. Uncited film (other than imdb). It lists a set of awards, but what awards is anyone's guess. Onel5969 TT me 23:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Keep has won six notable awards and was broadcast on a major network , references have been added that confirm the awards so it seems more notable than a run of the mill television film. Atlantic306 ( talk) 00:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ( non-admin closure) The1337gamer ( talk) 16:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Frog X Bird

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination). When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was Speedy delete. ( non-admin closure) The1337gamer ( talk) 16:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Frog X Bird (  | 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. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Reliable video game source web search returned 0 useful results. Also a WP:PROMO and WP:COI piece. The1337gamer ( talk) 22:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer ( talk) 22:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Also because many people say there is nothing mergeable, if people wonder why I didn't go for a redirect or a merger. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 18:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Best pony

Best pony (  | 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:GNG. Information and sources cane easily be wp:merged into My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic or similar pages. Comatmebro ( talk) 21:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 01:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Mike Beaver

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP, with some advertorial overtones (we don't care whether a journalist ever called anybody the next somebody else), of an actor whose main notability claim is that he's "probably" best known as a costumed and masked antagonist on a children's game show. This is not a major role for the purposes of passing WP:NACTOR, in the absence of reliable source coverage about his performance in that role — but none has been provided here at all. And on a ProQuest search, I get a smattering of glancing namechecks of the actor's existence amid search results that are primarily about an unrelated First Nations chief from northern Alberta — even the article with the "next John Candy" quote in it isn't a particularly strong source for much of anything else — so there's just not enough substantive reliable source coverage about him to salvage this with. Bearcat ( talk) 21:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 01:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 01:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 01:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I redid Bearcat's research, using slightly different sources, yet drew the very same conclusions: [1] Notability cannot be established with current references. [2] Notability could not be established with other online sources. If someone has new insights, I'm willing to reconsider. gidonb ( talk) 02:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Completely unsourced WP:BLP. Unable to confirm that the Toronto Star called him the next John Candy. Lack of substantive articles from reliable sources. desmay ( talk) 14:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
To be fair, I did find the "John Candy" hit on a ProQuest search; it was in 1997, so it wouldn't turn up in an open Google search. But the article didn't say much else of any substance about Beaver besides the prediction. Bearcat ( talk) 17:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. OK, first off it seems like the nominator and one delete !voter are sockpuppets and that would normally get the AfD thrown out, but there are legitimate users making arguments in favour of deletion. The crux of the argument is whether GNG is met (and whether BLPREQUESTDELETE applies, seeing as the article topic is a Wikipedia editor and they have opined in favour of deletion). Numerically it's fairly evenly split after throwing out the socks but the "delete" case is going in more depth about whether the sources are (in)substantial enough. That plus BLPREQUESTDELETE tips it over into "deletion". It's OK for Wikipedians to have articles so as long as normal biography inclusion criteria are met (i.e I am not familiar with any Wikipedian-specific policy different from normal biography policies), generally. Finally I see some users arguing whether to have a general "List of Wikipedians" article. It didn't get much discussion and I point people to WP:REFUND if they need the content of this article for such a project. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 18:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Steven Pruitt

Steven Pruitt (  | 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, permission not given for creation by Ser Amantio di Nicolao. Mrme i 22:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
NikolaiHo ☎️ 02:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, that is very much canvassing. For one thing, it is far from neutrally worded, and for another it is off-wiki, and would apparently not have been visible here without Everymorning's intervention. So it fits two of the four characteristics of inappropriate canvassing on WP:CANVASS, non-neutrality and stealth. I don't want to violate WP:OUTING by asking whether that was you, but whoever did that could face sanctions here for their misbehavior. This AfD is already somewhat questionable because the nominator turned out to be a sockpuppeteer; it doesn't need help making it more so. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • No, I have absolutely nothing to do with that reddit, I learned about it from that tag. The author of it wasn't telling people to come here and vote, he/she was just expressing his opinion, so what's the matter? NikolaiHo ☎️ 00:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Ok, glad to hear it wasn't you. But my feeling is that if someone just wants to blow off about an AfD they disagree with, the better approach is to wait until it is closed so that it doesn't look like canvassing. That also has the advantage that there's less chance of looking stupid when the AfD changes direction and ends up aligned with their opinion. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Sure it might be for their benefit not to have posted that but is it actually canvassing. In other words, should the canvassing notice on this AfD exist? That is my concern. NikolaiHo ☎️ 03:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • The first commenter there clearly believes its intent was to canvass. Regardless, what's the harm of the notice? It's just a helpful reminder to any newcomers who might wander by (canvassed or not) and to the closing admin. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, though I'm flattered to have been considered. Various issues, none of them having anything to do with BLP issues (believe me, I'm fine with anything in the article appearing publicly. I'm an open book, generally speaking.) But I've never been convinced that there are enough sources to currently justify writing me up. There aren't but four, after all...and there are aspects of my life missing from them all (birth date, birthplace, etc.) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 06:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Suggest we have a List of Wikipedia people and Steve has a section. The recognition by Time is great but do we really have enough material for a biography? I wouldn't want one if ever I got coverage for most articles created personally. I think we should wait until there is more coverage like Rosie has had for his own article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • KeepIm agree with @David Eppstein Amirdaeii ( talk) 07:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep other editors have attracted media attention for GNG over much weirder aspects of their editing history, David Eppstein and Andy Mabbett have the answer it meets the requirement JarrahTree 10:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No clear reason for the article's existence, and sure, Jimbo deserves an article, but as per SADN, not WP:Notable. Sure, he has 2 million plus edits, I have 2 million plus bacteria on my toilet seat. I consider notability to be something you can put on a resume and have the interviewer want to hire you immediately, or not hire you at all. Sure having two million edits to Wikipedia is impressive, but you put that on your resume and the guy will probably just go "cool" and pass right over it. Met meg an slay 00:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets GNG. Bobherry Talk Edits 14:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; it's all news reports, which are almost always primary sources, and these cases are human interest stories, which to quote WP:NEWSORG, are "generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy". In fact, one can question the idea that these are human interest stories — they all tend toward being opinion pieces of who's-who, and opinion pieces definitely aren't reliable for anything other than "Editor Alice thinks X". Nyttend ( talk) 04:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I like Dr. Blofeld's idea of a list of the Wikipedians who have had some off-WMF news coverage, but perhaps do not want an article (as here) or do not have adequate coverage to quite meet GNG (or be comfortable) for a full article. So, I can't decide if my !vote is weak delete or merge with list yet to be created, but this is my two cents. Montanabw (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Here's my take on the situation. Ser Amantio himself is arguing that he doesn't pass notability guidelines and I have to agree with him. The coverage I can find for him seems to center on the coverage in TIME, which is frankly very recent and doesn't show a true depth of coverage. Now while some of the notability guidelines do state that two sources show notability, that guideline is meant to cover cases where those two sources assert that the topic or person has done something that would be considered so major and significant that the article can be kept on that claim alone. Very, very few things rise to that level of notability, which is reserved for things like winning an Oscar or assuming a major political office (like President of the USA). In other words, those two sources would contain information about something that is so incredibly notable that it's obvious that more secondary, reliable sourcing is available somewhere, even if it's not immediately accessible.
I'm not trying to downplay Ser Amantio's contributions here or his impact on us and others, but right here and now he has not accomplished that level of notability, as the TIME designation would not be considered to be at that level. It's the type of thing that makes it incredibly more likely that more coverage will become available, but he hasn't received that level of notability right here and now. Now if we had a list akin to what Dr. Blofeld has suggested, then I'd whole heartedly suggest listing Ser Amantio's article there, but we don't have a list like that and I would recommend that anyone debating on starting such a list wait and start a discussion first because there is a lot of consideration that needs to be done for that list. (IE, notability threshold, coverage, etc.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Good point. When a Wikipedia editor says "Delete my article; I'm not notable", we really ought to do it — who's better familiar with the sources? This isn't someone saying "I don't want a Wikipedia article!" but someone saying "I'm familiar with WP:BIO, and I don't pass it". Nyttend ( talk) 11:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I think the notability here is borderline (one event really) (and uh, no offense Ser Amantio) and if it's borderline it should default to the subject's own preference. So if Ser Amantio says delete here, so do I (if it wasn't borderline, it'd be different). Also, I've seen this kind of thing go bad before.  Volunteer Marek  19:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Substantial coverage in Time and Vocativ, therefore meets GNG. Jakob ( talk) 22:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete - Basically of the same opinion as Volunteer Marek. Whether the paragraph in Time, a paragraph in Inc, and some decent coverage in El Diario and Vocativ amounts to not just notability but a stand-alone article isn't clear, and since the subject would prefer deletion, I hop off the fence to the delete side on this one. Not opposed to Blofeld's idea of creating a larger list and merging, fwiw. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article goes totally into the realm of navel gazing. Having articles on people who have made huge numbers of edits on Wikipedia without longstanding and good quality sources about them, just undermines the quality of Wikipedia itself. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. In the real world, this subject's notability is minor, not "substantial". – Athaenara ✉ 08:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The subject is a superb Wikipedian and it is appropriate that our most prolific editor has been recognized in human-interest stories in the media. However, notability cannot rest on one assertion (prolific editor) repeated by a number of outlets, particularly given WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and the fact that the subject has above requested deletion. The confusion regarding James Heilman is regrettable—this is not the place to expand on that, but even quickly scanning Heilman's article shows it has 59 references covering half a dozen different aspects of his work. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America 1000 01:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Charles Guyette

Charles Guyette (  | 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, based mostly on blogs Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 20:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 01:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 01:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 01:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep this photographer is clearly notable per non-passing coverage in significant books. The bad news is summarized in the intro and actually goes beyond: the article is a product of a blog that culminated in a self-published book (or the other way around) and in all fairness could be viewed as promotion for these. The article should be cleaned up from most references and a new set of references should be added (since current valid references underwrite facts, NOT notability). IF the conclusion of this AfD is the same as my conclusion (and that remains be seen!), I am willing to cleanup and reference. Just leave a note on my talk page if help is needed. gidonb ( talk) 02:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note I have updated the endnotes of this page to include more books. 12 October 2017 ... kindly look it over. Thanks.

Don't know how to update the wiki page with the image. Hoping someone will kindly lend support and assistance. A million thanks. 10/12/2017

Hi Arthistorian1977, are the improvements in referencing sufficient in your opinion for withdrawing the nomination? gidonb ( talk) 19:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
After looking second time, I do withdraw my nomination. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 05:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Thank you, Arthistorian1977! gidonb ( talk) 02:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Anon, we can't help you because the copyrights are unclear. Also please refrain from making hostile statements yourself. gidonb ( talk) 02:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. And salt; recreation ought to be discussed in WP:DELREV. It seems like while the keep camp is far more verbose, the arguments by the delete camp do address the keep arguments and have convinced more people. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 18:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Kedar_Joshi

AfDs for this article:
Kedar_Joshi (  | 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 the third incarnation of this page, with no increase in notability, and obvious signs of self-aggrandizement and disruptive editing of other pages. LordQwert ( talk) 19:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Additionally, the deletion should extend to the stub pages in the Interlingua, and Interlingue languages. (Those are different things?) I'm not a speaker of those languages, so I'm not comfortable instigating those deletions. LordQwert ( talk) 22:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Please note that the page Kali has been heavily edited by Hinduresci, including significant content related to Kedar Joshi's personal beliefs. I have reverted those edits and addressed the topic on the talk page. It is likely to me that several other articles related to Hinduism may have been edited by Hinduresci to align with his personal perspective. LordQwert ( talk) 17:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Other pages which may false under the auspices of a general review/deletion: Kshipra_Joshi, Bhanumati_(Mahabharata), Durukti, The_Mahābhārata_(Smith_book), and W._Douglas_P._Hill. Note that Durukti is, I believe, the entity Kedar Joshi claims to be, and that Hinduresci has added many links to the page, and references to the entity, from other Hinduism related Wikipedia pages, not listed here.
The article as it stands clearly appears to denote that the subject is notable. Hinduresci ( talk) 19:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

@nom, In view of the message you left on Spinningspark's talk page, if I had been Joshi himself as you seem to suggest, do you really think I would ever at all introduce the article on Kali (demon) in such scathing (though advertently factual) manner, e.g. fetid man who holds his penis in the left hand? I wonder whether it is possible for any sensible and equitable man to imagine the answer to that question in the affirmative! Hinduresci ( talk) 20:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I never intended to promote the subject. And I do not understand how it fails to establish notability. The 3 to 4 foreign language sources are not presumably unreliable. They are objectively deemed important, and so must be the topic covered by them substantially. Also, take, for example, a look at the manner in which the subject has been quoted by a reputed scholar at the Arizona State University! Do you not think it seems to suggest that the subject is worthy of notice? And would you, by the way, presume that the scholar intends to promote Joshi as well? Hinduresci ( talk) 01:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
I reckon there is more than sufficient objective evidence that he is a notable philosopher, though he may, of course, not be exceedingly notable. Hinduresci ( talk) 01:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Put differently, I do not understand how it is objectively deniable that the subject meets WP:BASIC and maybe WP:AUTHOR too. Hinduresci ( talk) 01:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: I'm not notable myself but can find plenty of references to my name in computer science related literature including by professors and some notable people, and I authored some published books (although I am anonymously editing here). Google results are plenty because of my participation in many opensource projects. There is no article about me on Wikipedia and doubt that I'll ever meet notability requirements for other volunteer editors to write one about me. If I wrote one, or hired someone to, it likely would not pass AfD. Wikipedia is simply not an indiscriminate collection of information or directory. Significant coverage should be available, not only mentions, quotes, press releases, non-independent sources coverage, bibliographies, etc. — Paleo Neonate – 01:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Significant coverage indeed looks available, and it is presumably independent and reliable. Also, in fact, the varied citations in scholarly articles by others who are presumably independent of him, look good enough to understand that the topic is proved to have worth of being noticed. Hinduresci ( talk) 01:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
If there is any prejudice against the foreign language sources, the prejudice is rather disruptive, not constructive. Hinduresci ( talk) 01:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: Neither online nor English language sources are necessary for establishing notability. And the sources with substantial coverage cited in the article are some of the most prominent and established ones (some even in existence since 1881) from a major language other than English, with around 73 million native speakers. Also, since he is the author of multiple notable (or important) aphorisms (which are pieces or works of literature), cited in the main prominently by presumably independent reputed scholars from academic disciplines (which even seem different from his own) including physics, cardiology, oceanography, as well as by rhetorician/s and editor/s of some of the most important newspapers such as The Times of India, he is manifestly a notable (or important or influential) author, though the degree of notability (or importance or influence) may not be exceeding and does not have to be either. Hinduresci ( talk) 07:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
@nom, If the significant content you mentioned at all appears to relate to Kedar Joshi's personal beliefs, let me apprise you that the appearance merely seems to result from a queer combination of accident, factuality, and bibliographic reference to his work, none of which, I suppose, is gratuitous. Hinduresci ( talk) 17:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Substantial (or non-trivial) coverage is given; and non-English and offline sources are acceptable. That "I couldnt find any in depth coverage" makes no sense. Hinduresci ( talk) 06:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: Not every source must be of the standard of The Washington Post, for instance, to be deemed reliable and acceptable.
Let me also cite a couple of relevant and interesting statements:
"Notability of articles is sometimes very subjective, varying with time and geography. For some people, US 1980 presidential candidate John Anderson might be a noted person; others who don't live in the United States might feel that Scottish 18th century scientist John Anderson is more prominent."
"Deletionism may favor rich countries, since it's there most people have a computer and the Internet at home. (poor countries are usually less in the medias, except wars, famines and natural disasters or sporting success) This would give a very Western World-fixed POV. Sure Wikipedia is no charity project, but it still shall cover the entire world." — Inclusionism Hinduresci ( talk) 07:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply
As far as I can see there is nothing self-promotional, and he definitely does not look insufficiently notable either. Are you just totally looking down upon the non-English sources? If you are, I have to say you are mistaken; and I believe to have already mentioned the reasons. Hinduresci ( talk) 16:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
In fact I clearly get the impression that since a number of suitable sources have so far been found, it is likely that even more sources exist as well. Also see WP:NPOSSIBLE. Hinduresci ( talk) 16:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
I could actually disclose how I ran into this topic; how I managed to procure the sources and so on. However, the only trouble is the terrible controversy that potentially surrounds my contribution to Kali (demon), which discourages me from revealing much information. 17:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
In other words, since my contributions, especially the ones to the article on Kali (demon), are, it can certainly be argued, religiously controversial to a great extent, I better be reticent for my own security. Hinduresci ( talk) 17:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: Let me substantiate it to you how this topic is notable! Let's keep aside the substantial coverage in the presumably independent and reliable non-English published sources as well as the questionably substantial astrological coverage in the couple of English sources which include The Indian Express. What seem to remain then are the dialogues published in Philosophy Pathways and several presumably independent and reliable, published English sources which appear to cite him along with his aphorisms. Now, if we keep aside the dialogues too, we would be left with the following: Kedar Joshi is the author of multiple noted aphorisms, one of which has been cited in a column as prominent as the Sacred Space of The Times of India, while another one has been cited by an American cardiologist right at the beginning of one of his research papers published in a journal as reputed as the Journal of the American College of Cardiology; yet another aphorism has been quoted by a very reputed researcher affiliated to Arizona State University on the first page of one of his published academic works, along with a picture of Kedar Joshi himself. There is one more aphorism which has been cited, along with an aphorism by Confucius, in a scholarly journal right at the beginning of the paper published in it. There is also a Spanish author who not only seems to have cited him in his reliable, published work but also appears to have mentioned him as a philosopher who is so young and yet so lucid. A journalist from southern India once asked a noted individual for his opinion on one of Joshi's works. And a book written by an independent author and published by a noted publisher cites one of his aphorisms too; and so on.
Now, according to WP:BIO, "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note" – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life." Is it not apparent from description above that there is objective evidence that Mr Joshi is indeed interesting or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded? Remember, it is not at all necessary for a biographical topic to have a full account of its life covered in independent and reliable published source/s; because, although, for example, Kshipra Joshi is clearly a noted topic which seems to meet WP:NGYMNAST as well as WP:ANYBIO, even its full date of birth could not be known from any independent and reliable published source, let alone a full biography. And let me ingeminate that although I created the articles on both of the aforementioned Joshis, I have no personal connection to any of them, and I also believe to have mentioned fairly strong logical evidence to the contrary. — Hinduresci ( talk) 23:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: See also: The rationale opposing deletion of the article on W. Douglas P. Hill & The quotations as to notability, especially the second one
Similarly, is it wonted for an average author from this planet to have their work (independently) cited in a column as discriminating as the Sacred Space of The Times of India? No, not at all! That means Joshi is notable (or unusual or rare or uncommon). Is it, at all, wonted for an average mortal to beget multiple works of noteworthiness? No, not at all! Again, that means Joshi is notable. Is it wonted for an average person to have their works independently featured in most renowned publications in virtually the most prominent fashion imaginable? Of course not! That means Joshi is notable, yet again. Is it wonted for an average human to be independently alluded to in a fairly reliable source as an intellectual with astonishing intelligibility? Obviously not! Joshi is notable on that account as well; and so forth. And do remember the incontestable please: The sole thing notability boils down to is unusualness (or rarity). — Hinduresci ( talk) 22:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
He is notable on account of the rationale given above; ends the matter. — Hinduresci ( talk) 04:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
If the concern as to fringe theorist is indeed credible, the sole trouble with the article would be the "Philosophical views" section; and not the article itself. — Hinduresci ( talk) 05:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
And as long as the fringe views are not given undue weight, the trouble should be trivial. — Hinduresci ( talk) 05:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: The topic is obviously unusual (or notable) enough to be recorded in Wikipedia, especially when Wikipedia is not made of paper. Even the aforedescribed nature of the citations of his aphorisms is indicative of striking unusualness (or clear notability); and that truth is, in fact, also noticed in a fairly reliable Marathi source with an article about him. Besides, since it is quite presumable that almost all of those citations have been independent of Joshi, it should also be presumable that the substantial biographical coverage of him in the non-English source(s) did not result from self-promotion either. Furthermore, it is equally evident that a substantial (or encyclopedic) article could be written from reliable sources. Deletion is nearly out of the question. And pretty much the same could, of course, be said about Hill as well. — Hinduresci ( talk) 17:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non notable self-promoter. It looks like that this person has spent less time in being an "author, philosopher" and spent more time in promoting himself across Wikipedia projects. Capitals00 ( talk) 16:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Yours is a subjective viewpoint virtually contradicted by evidence. — Hinduresci ( talk) 16:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. Pretty obvious consensus here. Don't understand why this was relisted. A Train talk 20:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Sharn (Forgotten Realms)

AfDs for this article:
Sharn (Forgotten Realms) (  | 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. All sources are primary or from user forums. Argento Surfer ( talk) 14:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c ) ( m) 19:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Blythe (doll). Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 18:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

This Is Blythe

This Is Blythe (  | 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 book from non-notable author with virtually no in-depth coverage.

Long existing article that has a somewhat problematic editing history. Sources are poor, and would seem to fail reliability test. Time to put it before the community for review. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Blythe (doll) Gina Garan has received some coverage of her work, for example here, in what I think is a questionable "Forbes contributor" source, and here. There are mores sources but in totality it's not enough to make this book notable enough for a standalone article, or even for an article on Garan herself. Mduvekot ( talk) 19:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c ) ( m) 19:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Sussex#Campus media. Why this was relisted with such a clear consensus? A Train talk 20:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

University Radio Falmer

University Radio Falmer (  | 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 page was created in April 2009 and most of the initial edits were by a single user, Arcmon, who hasn't made any other contributions to Wikipedia either before or after. All but one of the references are now dead links, and a Google news search for "University Radio Falmer" gives only one result, to a reblogged press release. I would suggest that the article fails to meet Wikipedia's threshold for notability ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 10:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  11:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  11:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to University of Sussex#Campus media. Nothing to suggest this needs a stand alone article, and nothing to write one with. GMG talk 14:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect. There are a few sources floating around in a Google search, but not enough to require a separate article when University of Sussex#Campus media is available as a natural place to cover this station and the university's other media. I added a little bit there. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 16:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect as noted. Back in 2009 those links still actually went somewhere. If they're dead there's no content here. Syrthiss ( talk) 16:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect It's a shame there are no further sources since the station has been around since 1970s, but since that's the case it isn't notable on its own Aloneinthewild ( talk) 17:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect as noted. It's true that this isn't reliably sourced well enough to stand alone as an independent article topic, but it's verifiable enough to merit a mention in the university's article — which, in fact, is precisely what WP:NMEDIA dictates for student media outlets that cannot be sourced well enough to stand alone. For a station that's been around since the 1970s and used to operate on a conventional broadcast band, I suspect that better sources actually might exist in archived media databases, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can dig out enough media coverage from microfilms or whatever to do better than this, but it's not exempted from having to be properly sourced just because I think better sources might exist if nobody can actually show that better sources do exist. Bearcat ( talk) 14:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC) reply
After a week, there's not been much progress on the article: a comment on my own talk page, and a handful of predominantly unconstructive edits by sockpuppets (most of which have required reversion) ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 10:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c ) ( m) 19:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clearly no consensus to delete this article. Merge discussion can continue on the article's talk page if desired. A Train talk 20:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Bare-metal server

Bare-metal server (  | 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 a redundant page, describing a lot most of the things in computer server. Also only has three citations. AtlasDuane ( talk) 09:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Keep It's not redundant, because although a bare metal server is simply a computer server, the term is used when in contrast to a virtual server. With the growth of cloud computing in particular, we now need to make that as a distinction we just didn't need a few years ago.
As to the number of citations, then you're welcome to add some more. What is WP:POLICY now ? Articles need to have 4 citations or they're speedy-deleted? Or is it 5? Or 23? Andy Dingley ( talk) 09:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 09:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 09:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This term is more than eligible for inclusion, but it's an editorial judgement about whether it warrants a separate article. The issue is how much of the article's content is better covered elsewhere, and what scope should be left for this article. Once that is determined, are we left with a WP:PERMASTUB, and is that actually an issue, or are we better off redirecting to a subsection of another article. TheDragonFire ( talk) 07:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
So where would you merge it? To Virtual server? - where we don't even have an article? And which represents the opposite of this term. Andy Dingley ( talk) 09:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
"Redirect to somewhere we haven't got" How does that work then?
Also when did " article is low-quality" become a reason to WP:DELETE? Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Dedicated hosting service may be an option. And I'm advocating deletion of most of the existing content as an editorial decision, not as an AfD one. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
So because this article is "so badly sourced it must be deleted at once!", you want to redirect it to Dedicated hosting service. Which has no working references at all. Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
You're correct, my vote should have been Merge. That said, not everything at AfD is entirely about the existence of sources. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Is the purpose of Wikipedia still to be an encyclopedia? (I'm unconvinced this week) As "bare-metal server" is a current term of art (just look at Google), then how is this encyclopedic goal served by redirecting a WP:NOTABLE term to an unsourced article that doesn't mention it? Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c ) ( m) 19:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Battle of Tolbiac. A Train talk 07:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Battle of Strasbourg (506)

Battle of Strasbourg (506) (  | 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 couldn't verify the information in this article. I have no idea which source "Fertig 2" is supposed to be, but in any case I only find reliable sources about the battle in 357, and not about this one (looking in English and German). Fram ( talk) 07:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Keep as I've found the sources mentioned, including Fertig, and added new ones both in the text and the bibliography. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 09:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • And which of these sources discuss a Battle of Strasbourg in 506? For example "Fertig 2, 281" is highly unlikely, as Fertig 2 has only 16 pages [6] (Fertig 1 has bout 30 pages, so even a combined edition wouldn't get so far). All I see in e.g. Wood [7] is general discussion about a 506 battle, probably about the Battle of Tolbiac, nothing about a 506 battle of Strasbourg. Please indicate exactly which source, on which page, discusses the actual topic of this article. Fram ( talk) 09:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
      • If you read the text, you'll see that the Fertig reference follows the sentence "A panegyric by Ennodius about Theodoric the Great speaks exaggeratedly of a victory by Theodoric over the Alamanni." I've checked the references and they appear to back up the text they refer to. Why don't you work with me to help improve the article further? Just a thought. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 14:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
        • The Fertig reference? You mean the one pointing to a page number that doesn't exist? Why, instead of all this, can't you answer a very simple question: which source, page, line discusses a 506 Battle in Strasbourg. If possible, please provide a link to an online copy. Fram ( talk) 14:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge or redirect (perhaps rename and repurpose) -- Alamannia deals with its subjection to the Franks and Ostrogoths. The whole basis of this article is that there "must have" been a battle, which some historians postulate to be near Strasbourg. Any argument using "must have" implies a guess, which should mean that the subject is not suitable for an encyclopedia article. The broader subject as to what historians suggest to have happened might be. The matter is covered in the Merovingian Duchy section of Alamannia, and it might be appropriate to have a more detailed "main" article on this, and this article might be restructured and repurposed for this, but it cannot retain its present name and battle infobox, becasue we do not know where or even whether it took place. The target might be Conquest of southern Alamannia by the Franks. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep/Merge This battle may be hypothetical, however there are sources for it, and it could probably be merged into some expansive article. It is probably unreasonable to expect be able to find enough sources on a minor battle from 1500 years ago to expand on this, however the article is not too bad. Dysklyver 08:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Which sources are there for it? Please don't take the word of the article creator for it. "the article is not too bad" expect for that minor fact, that most sourecs are not about this battle but about well, perhaps, something happened between 501-507, it might have been in 506, it may have been a battle, but apart from one letter which vaguely refers to this we know nothing about it. If it needs to be merged or redirected, it should point to Battle of Tolbiac, which is actually, verifiably, and regularly speculated of having happened in 506, as mentioned at that article. This article is basically a fork based on thin air where so far not one actual reliable source with this speculation about a battle in Strasbourg has been given. Even if such a source would materialize eventually, it would have to be rather substantial anyway to warrant a full article and not just a footnote in an existing article. Fram ( talk) 09:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Sources found. Okay so I've added 2 sources that definitely support the article.
    • Geunich states that "Claude deduces, as most historians now do, that there were two or three battles between the Franks and the Alemanni. The first is supposed to have taken place at Zülpich [=Battle of Tolbiac] in the 480s or early 490s, leading to the knee injury of the Rhine-Frankish king, Sigibert. The second conflict, which was dated by Gregory to the "fifteenth year" of Clovis' reign, i.e. 496/97, was that "conversion battle" that led to his baptism. In the third battle, in the year 506, Clovis gave the Alemanni such a "crushing defeat" (at Strasbourg?)" that they "lost their political independence." This third battle was the occasion of the intervention of the Ostrogoth king, Theoderic the Great, who campaigned for the "exhausted remnants" of the Alemanni and ordered Clovis to stop."
    • Ewig more briefly states that in "506, an unforeseen event occurred. The Alemanni rose up against their Frankish overlords under a military king, who apparently mobilised the majority of the tribe. Clovis dealt them a devastating defeat (at Strasbourg?), which put an end to the political autonomy of the Alamanni, whose king fell in the battle, and which led to considerable upheaval in the land.... Worms and Speyer and the lands north of the Oos were annexed by Francia. The Franks pursued their vanquished enemies, who fled in droves to Rhaetia in the region governed and influenced by the Ostrogots."
    • The original text (in German) is on the talk page for those interested, but I've added the references to the article.
    • Other scholars mentioned by Geunich include Anton and Schäferdiek, but I haven't had time to research those. However, it's clear that there is more than enough evidence at this stage to warrant keeping and improving it. Bermicourt ( talk) 20:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks. So, at the time of your article creation, and at the time of your keep, you didn't actually have any sources about this battle, and the sources you added then also didn't mention the battle? Anyway, now we have two sources who have "(at Strasbourg?)". Basing an article on a coment in parentheses and with a question mark seems not enough to meet WP:N at all, which requires indepth, significant coverage, not throwaway speculation in brackets. Mentioning this speculation in an article about the Frankish-Alemannish battles is of course possible, but I see no reason to have a full article on two repetitions of "(at Strasbourg?)". Fram ( talk) 06:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Agree with Fram, the two sources provided suggest a hypothetical battle, without nailing down specifics. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
        • I've found yet another source by Johannes Hoops that refers to this battle in 506 as taking place wohl bei Straßburg i.e. "probably by Strasbourg". I'll add that too.
        • @Fram. The article isn't based on a comment in parentheses, its based on a scholarly assessment of the sources and Strasbourg is the place they believe it happened. That's history. The whole article is now well sourced and it's clear there is much more information out there than any of us first thought; of course it could be further improved as we look at the work of other scholars (I missed out Becher), but that's true of most articles here.
        • @Icewhiz. I think scholarly consensus is that this battle did take place; the only uncertainty is where. But there is general agreement that Strasbourg is likely. We could add a "?" to the title, but IMHO that's unnecessary; the article explains the situation.
        • These new sources put the veracity of the article beyond doubt and this delete discussion should be closed. What is now needed is work by genuinely interested editors to improve the article, based on the additional sources I have mentioned and maybe then a review alongside other related articles like the Battle of Tolbiac. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 07:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
          • The whole article is now well sourced? Yes, if you believe including sources you haven't seen and pages which don't exist is "well-sourced", then sure. "a scholarly assessment of the sources and Strasbourg is the place they believe it happened. " Well, you have one source putting it "probably in Strassburg", two sources putting it in parentheses and with a question mark, and you ignore the sources which think the 506 battle is the Tolbiac battle. What is needed is what has been suggested by others, a general article about the Franko-Alemannish conflict of 490-506 or thereabouts (now a section in Alamannia), discussing things like this sometimes hypothesed Battle of Strasbourg and the much more well-established battle of Tolbiac. The article we have here has very little info on the actual battle and a lot on the historical background, so the obvious thing is to have an article on the historical background where the very little info on the battle is included together with the other battles and different opinions. Fram ( talk) 08:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
            • That's a very unreasonable interpretation: the "sources you haven't seen" are in the article, fully referenced. I'm sorry you couldn't find the right page in one source, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist! Instead of criticising every improvement and new piece of evidence, why don't you welcome and encourage them? After all, it shows your intervention is paying off! And perhaps even work constructively and help me and others develop the article. Surely as an admin, you should be cheering us volunteer editors on, not wearing us down! This article is now way better referenced than many on Wikipedia. If we delete everything that doesn't meet FA standards, there'd be little left and, frankly, few editors willing to help. Bermicourt ( talk) 16:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge (or else keep) with Battle of Tolbiac. I do not believe there is consensus that these are different battles. The historiographical issues should be dealt with in one place. Srnec ( talk) 00:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Most scholars, however, would disagree with you and I'm inclined to go with them. "That the Franks defeated the Alemanni in 496 with the help of God, and that their king, Clovis, was then baptized in Reims, still belongs to the general knowledge which every half-educated [German] person has internalized since his school days." In other words, Geunich is saying that the notion that there was one decisive battle is an old schoolboy's tale; that recent scholarship has unpicked into the 2-3 battles he has described. While several scholars merge the 480s/early 490s conflict with the 496/497 at Tolbiac, few combine it with this separate battle in 506. But it'd be great if editors other than me did some actual research and added to the sum of human knowledge about this period of history. Bermicourt ( talk) 19:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC) reply
      • @ Bermicourt: - it might make sense to create a "Alamanni-Franks conflict" article - in such an article one could list possible battles, and evidence for their possible existence, as well as discuss battles where there is a consensus. The problem with this article it discusses a possible event that some historians surmise occurred at this year and location. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC) reply
        • @ Icewhiz:. That makes a lot of sense. From my research, it is difficult to untangle the battles clearly from one another in the primary sources so, not surprisingly, the secondary sources differ. Geunich, who does a summary of scholarly thinking, says most historians agree there were 2 or 3 battles. Whether the Battle of Tolbiac (=Zülpich) was first or second is unclear. If we created a generic "Frankish-Alemannic conflict" article, we'd need to merge this one and Battle of Tolbiac into it. I'm willing to give it a go, but would appreciate help. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 12:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC) reply
          • Tolbiac could remain standalone as a sub article (as there seems to be a consensus it happened), the wider conflict\war should cover it as well as surmised additional events and outcomes. Icewhiz ( talk) 18:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC) reply
            • Hmm. There was defo a battle at Zülpich (Tolbiac); that's mentioned by Gregory. But scholars don't agree on the date. I've seen all three dates associated with it. Essentially all that seems definite is that: there were at least 2 battles, one of which was at Zülpich, one was in 496/97 and one in 506; Sigobert was lamed at Zülpich; Clovis was the victor each time and converted to Christianity as a result of the 496/97 battle. The current Battle of Tolbiac article doesn't reflect the level of uncertainty over the Frankish-Alemannic conflict or the latest scholarly position. In reality, its details are almost as vague as Strasbourg. @ Auntieruth55: are you able to shed any light on this. Bermicourt ( talk) 19:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c ) ( m) 19:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Create Frankish-Alemannic conflict article and, depending on what that looks like, consider merging both battle articles into it as neither appears to be attested in any detail in the sources and several theories abound. For consistency, I'm using the same naming schema as another conflict in {{Campaignbox Battles of Clovis I}} called the Frankish-Thuringian campaign (491), but for which I can find no sources at all! for which I have now found several sources. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 09:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Merge to proposed putative name above. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Very clearly no consensus to delete here. Discussion about redirection can continue on the article talk pages, as necessary. A Train talk 20:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheepdog

Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheepdog (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Don't Give Up the Sheep (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sheep Ahoy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Double or Mutton (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Steal Wool (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ready, Woolen and Able (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A Sheep in the Deep (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Woolen Under Where (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Persistent edit-warring and blanking of these articles. AfD the lot, let's get some agreement as to whether they belong or not. Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Keep the lot. These are clearly real cartoons of the 1950s, produced by a major studio and distributed worldwide. I can see no reason why they fail any of our notability policies. I can see no reason to keep one article and delete the others, as has been happening repeatedly (not even merging, simply blanking them).
If sourcing is currently poor, then WP:SOFIXIT. This is US mass-market media within living memory. Surely the sources are out there for those who know animation history. Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment - btw, I'd be more than willing to create that table in the target if the end result is to redirect. Onel5969 TT me 17:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I don't know, many of the Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies shorts are discussed extensively. Unfortunately, it's not exactly too easy to get a hold of a lot of these sources. I've personally been wanting to expand upon some of these articles for some time (and have done some before). I could imagine at least Don't Give Up the Sheep staying, as it was a milestones short, being the debut of Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheepdog. Let's start with this. Unfortunately, that book preview only shows a tiny bit of observation about it, but if what is said about the other shorts are indication, a few things of substance may be said. I'll have to look more into this later. Kokoro20 ( talk) 18:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I'm the author of these articles. At one point in time, they were awarded with a DYK for the research I did on which scenes were eventually censored. If I recall correctly, somebody then came along and deleted those facts (along with the references) claiming they were trivial, which triggered the corresponding images to be deleted, and then a year later they came back to complain that the articles contain no references. I just don't have the energy to devote to Wikipedia politics any more. -- Skrapion ( talk) 00:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Things like the censorship of the smoking break is exactly what makes these interesting as encyclopedia articles. But repeatedly blanking them and shouting "just not notable!" is so much easier. Andy Dingley ( talk) 00:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply
All of these deletions seem to have been done by a single editor. This is pretty much all they do, and their clear POV is evident from their username. Andy Dingley ( talk) 00:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To check whether significant sources could be discovered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric On leave 05:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, AD's argument is that the articles do not violate any policies, which is not a mere ILIKEIT argument. It isn't really necessary to advise the closing admin, but if you must do so, please don't misrepresent the opposing views. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, saying an article doesn't meet GNG or any of the policies/guidelines to warrant inclusion, but it does not "violate any policies" is pretty much a paraphrase of "This is a really great article, and I think it should stay", which is one of the 3 concrete examples given in ILIKEIT. Onel5969 TT me 12:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Setting aside the fact that ILIKEIT is an essay which I am perfectly free to ignore, the keep !voters have not said that the article doesn't meet GNG or any of the policies/guidelines to warrant inclusion. In fact, this was AD's exact wording: I can see no reason why they fail any of our notability policies. Lepricavark ( talk) 15:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
It's an essay dealing specifically with arguments not to use in AfD discussions. Yes, you are free to ignore it. Others are free to take note of it. None of the arguments have shown that these articles pass WP:GNG. Saying something, without proof, is meaningless. Onel5969 TT me 15:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
I know what the essay is about, and it does not apply in any case because saying that the article does not fail notability polices is not the same as saying "I like it." Lepricavark ( talk) 16:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most people are saying to keep the parent article, no consensus yet on the others.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c ) ( m) 19:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 08:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Kevin Deutsch

Kevin Deutsch (  | 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 sourcing to pass GNG outside of a brouhaha over sourcing of a book. Tossing aside coverage of this single event, quoting the words of the complainant at an ongoing AN/I case over edit-warring on this piece, "His '15 year career in journalism' is not actually particularly notable and would likely be deleted as a stand-alone article."

I personally have no strong views on the matter but would like community input as to whether this individual's biography does or does not fulfill the General Notability Guideline or, failing that, any relevant Special Notability Guideline. Thanks. Carrite ( talk) 12:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mark the train Discuss 13:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mark the train Discuss 13:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Mark the train Discuss 13:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, albeit with some reluctance. (I was the one who said the above quote and brought this to ANI originally... and maybe I'll regret this !vote if the POV-pushing edit war continues eternally.) Deutsch doesn't qualify as a low-profile individual - he's self-promoted himself, he's written books & done book signing & self-promotion events, etc. So while his "normal" journalism career is of no importance as far as sources are concerned, his work as an author is of borderline notability, and the scandal was large and long-running enough as to not be a WP:BLP1E issue. (It also involved more than just the book... it also tainted the journalism career, with editor's notes and redactions being made retroactively to articles he wrote. So the SCANDAL was notable if not the career itself.) The fact that the scandal originally broke in March 2017, and has kept rolling since then with things like this April 2017 Rolling Stone article or this September 2017 Washington Post story, which are willing to make comparisons with notable-for-the-wrong-reasons journalists like Jayson Blair, also shows that the issue has legs. SnowFire ( talk) 13:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, Snowfire has pegged this one exactly. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • As the original article creator, I recall that the rationale for approval of the article initially was fact that Deutsch's books are carried in multiple libraries he and has written high profile stories for major pubs. If he was notable enough for inclusion then, he probably is now. That being said, I have concerns about what appear to be pretty transparent attempts to harm subject's reputation through excising of neutrality from article. I think the admins must make the final call here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexVegaEsquire ( talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 05:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c ) ( m) 19:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 V speeds#Regulatory V-speeds. With the caveat that expansion into a proper article with sources is still allowed. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Overspeed (aeronautics)

Overspeed (aeronautics) (  | 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 so-called "article" escapes speedy deletion criteria by a hair! In essence, this article says nothing more than "overspeed is too much speed". It consists of:

If it said anything more, we could have merged it into ... well, there are a lot of candidates. Codename Lisa ( talk) 05:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Mark the train Discuss 05:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to V speeds#Regulatory V-speeds, where it is mentioned. While severely underdeveloped, the article makes sense. The five lines are a starting list of what are termed V speeds. Overspeed itself is a standard concept in aircraft operation [8] and commercial aircraft have an audible overspeed alarm when Vmo, the maximum operating speed, is exceeded. Because an overspeed alarm condition is defined relative to a particular aircraft's Vmo (and Mmo, the Mach equivalent), redirecting to the V speed article provides the best context for readers. It is conceivable the topic could be expanded beyond a mention, in say flight envelope, but redirect is best option until that happens. -- Mark viking ( talk) 11:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oh, I see. Judging from what you said, the first line (advice-like) is VNE, the second is VFC, the third is VMO, the fourth is VFE, the fifth is VLE and the last is VLO. So, it is basically category-2 patent nonsense, not category-1. Thanks for explanation. — Codename Lisa ( talk) 12:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c ) ( m) 19:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Vijaya Lawate

Vijaya Lawate (  | 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 significant references for notability; known promotional editor DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train talk 07:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Juni Cortez

Juni Cortez (  | 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 fictional character has no independent notability outside of the films which it appears. The article has been plot cruft and references for several years before today and as far as I can see the sources are not remotely good enough to esstablish any notability. Interviews form creaters and random webistes are not relibale sources. ★Trekker ( talk) 18:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  • KEEP Nominator, your argument makes no sense. This fictional character has no independent notability outside of the films which it appears A fictional character would always have notability in and around the work that the character appears in. The article subject, the character has received significant coverage in multiple WP:RS. This article passes WP:GNG. Bythebooklibrary ( talk) 18:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply
No I recommend you rephrase that because your comment makes little sense. A character does not always have notability within its own world. The only decent ref I see speaks about the characters sister in depth, not the character in question. ★Trekker ( talk) 18:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Bythebooklibrary: I would recommend providing links to prove that the character has "received significant coverage in multiple WP:RS", which you have stated above. The nominator's argument is well constructed so I would advise you to read the arguments for AfDs more carefully in the future. Aoba47 ( talk) 13:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • "A fictional character would always have notability in and around the work that the character appears in." That is false, per WP:INHERITED that character would need independent notability from the work they appear in. Also, the coverage shown is not "significant". ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 09:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 19:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Is WP:FANCRUFT that fails the general notability guidelines. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 09:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this character does not have enough real world notability to justify an article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I see no policy-oriented arguments for deletion and no evidence of an actual WP:BEFORE - WP policy requires that AfD noms proceed on the basis of the notability of the subject, not as demonstrated in the article. This character is discussed (not as a TRIVIALMENTION) in such books as Mediated Boyhoods and Home Movies and has a whole chapter in Critical Approaches to the films of Robert Rodriguez, as well as another in a doctoral thesis by Victoria Kearley. This clearly meets WP:GNG, and I am getting tired of people citing WP:FANCRUFT as if it were a policy and as if it gave guidance on notability issues. In-universe style in articles is a WP:FIXIT issue, not a policy-based ground for deletion. Also, it is for the nominator and the Delete voters to do the WP:BEFORE, FFS. Newimpartial ( talk) 21:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Acting high and mighty like people are crazy for not doing a deep dive into non fiction books about movies is not helping either. If this is really true, then give some proof instead of saying "gosh, check out the books from the library" and maybe people will change their vote. The burden of providing sources is on the creator of the article. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 00:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Except that the burden actually isn't there, in the case of AfD - the deletion criteria clearly state that the responsibility lies with the nom to do the BEFORE, and not to base the nomination on the state of the referencing in the article. I really do not know how the documentation could be more clear.
All of the books and the dissertation I cited came up in a simple search of Google Scholar. The responsibility is on anyone nominating a fictional subject for deletion or crying "FANCRUFT" to do at least this basic level of research. This isn't a matter of "high and mighty", it's a matter of respect for the bloody rules. Newimpartial ( talk) 00:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Doing "BEFORE" is not contingent on searching every method in existence, when the author of the article can't bother to source it, and nothing comes up in a basic search. If the sources are obscure, they should be included, or at least demonstrated in the AfD, without blaming the nominator and making it into a WP:ADHOM. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 09:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
The nom offered no evidence of doing any BEFORE, and your own !vote cited the GNG even though a simple Google Scholar search shows that GNG is met by this subject. That isn't "searching every method in existence"; it's the essential minimum in cases where regular web or media searches are likely to result in long lists of fan-generated material or trivial mentions. According to WP policy, insufficient citation in an article is never grounds for AfD aside from BLP issues. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: no consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 01:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
comment - sadly, this experienced editor is contributing a non-policy-compliant !vote here. I have listed sources providing SIGCOV so there is no grounds for deletion per GNG. AfD is not cleanup. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
comment - Can I just point out that this is another !vote that is not compliant with policy. We are supposed to be having an AfD discussion about whether the subject of the article meets GNG requirements. I have listed four substantial academic references (found using Google scholar) that show that it does. This !voter has clearly not even read the discussion, and has not provided any rationale grounded in anything but an IDONTLIKEIT reaction to the existing article. Not policy compliant. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
You did not "list" four references, merely noted that they existed in the manner of WP:SOURCESEARCH. You should link to them and demonstrate how they show real world notability if you want people to take them as legitimate arguments towards the article's notability. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 15:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
I most certainly did list them, by name, and described how I found them. There is absolutely no requirement for me to provide links - the way you are shifting the onus looks a lot like just moving the goalposts, from here. The AfD criteria and the GNG are actually quite clear. Newimpartial ( talk) 15:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 04:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
@ MichaelQSchmidt: But James Tiberius Kirk does have real world significance. Much has been written about him apart from the in universe story line, he is a benchmark against which other SciFi spaceship captains are measured, and his is probably a household name. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 03:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
He's fictional yes, and just as with Juni, all sources speak about him in relationship to Star Trek....the series which created him. The "slippery slope" is when one uses a personal opinion about how "important" that series is to its target audience. Better than arguing the issue, it might be better to redirect to where the information in Juni already exists... Spy Kids (franchise). Schmidt, Michael Q.
Comment Yet another !vote with no policy basis, and which does not seem to reflect even a cursory look at the sources on the topic. Newimpartial ( talk) 01:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Provide links to the sources rather than an assertion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c ) ( m) 19:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It is not WP:FANCRUFT . Character was arguable to ,main character in the first Spykids film as per the Google books source given in the article. desmay ( talk) 18:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Barely any proper coverage specific to this fictional character, the refs given are barely related to the subject nad often make a passing mention at best; not to mention one of them is slideshow by Entertainment Weekly and another is a 8 Top Secret Facts tabloid article by People's Choice. Nothing to prove its notability at all (doesn't pass GNG by any regards). Also, Newimpartial needs to stop badgering every "Delete" voter, especially with that placeholder "comment" at this point. -- QEDK ( 愛 • 海) 07:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
That argument might carry more weight, QEDK, if you had provided a policy-compliant argument on the notability of the topic rather than an irrelevant digression on the sourcing of the article (but disguised as a !vote). Newimpartial ( talk) 15:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

2018 in the United States

2018 in the United States (  | 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 useful content. Incumbents removed due to WP:Crystal and fact we don't know who the incumbents will be in a few months time ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 00:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. For comparison purposes, let's look at 2017 in the United States. It was created in June 2016 with this edit, which seems to be a more concrete event than we have in the 2018 article currently. The 2016 version was created on 19 December 2015 ( here). 2015, meanwhile, was created in July 2014 ( here), and had much more structure than the other first edits I'm seeing. So being premature isn't, itself, a reason to delete - we've had more premature articles of this type in past years. As for content, well we know there will be events in 2018, and that they will happen in the United States, so we should probably consider adding them. Midterm elections, for example. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 17:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 17:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I would agree with the above comment that the issue here seems to be more the current content (and past content) than whether a page for 2018 is viable at this stage as pointed out above there are legitimate things that could go here eg the various scheduled elections, scheduled major sporting events etc Dunarc ( talk) 21:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral. Technically nom is correct, however this will be created in this form in less than 3 months (assuming the world doesn't end prior to 2018, and the country still exists). Similar articles were created in years past prior to the year beginning. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c ) ( m) 19:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per nominator's !vote, unopposed. ( non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Augusta and Summerville Railroad

Augusta and Summerville Railroad (  | 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 excellent article stub about a particular short line is all original research. The article has no references that indicate the existence of the line or any of the details, apparently painstakingly collected since 2006. The article fails WP:V. This particular line is described in several legal articles[ [9]]. It is unclear that this makes the short line notable WP:N. The article ought to say why it is notable and deserves to be in an encyclopedia. Eleven years should be long enough to add these details to the article. It is up to the editor adding text to provide references. Rhadow ( talk) 17:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Mark the train Discuss 18:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mark the train Discuss 18:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mainly per G7, but a little bit of SNOW/ IAR as well. Primefac ( talk) 16:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Leslie Becker

Leslie Becker (  | 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 all four points of WP:NCREATIVE. Not "widely cited by peers or successors"; not "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique"; not a "significant or well-known work or collective body of work...the primary subject of an independent and notable work"; not subject of "a significant monument" etc. Likewise WP:NACTOR. ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The nom has failed to take note of WP:GNG. Talking about WP:NCREATIVE is fine but that guideline specifically says: Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; ... A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under  Wikipedia:Notability. Since the sources [14] [15] [16] etc. all have significant biographies on her, and given there is a significant number of supporting references to her in other reliable sources this is a keep for me. Dysklyver 19:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
It was intentional, I am guided by the mini-essay "It is not possible to tell whether or not something is notable by the WP:GNG" at User:DGG. As DGG says, these marginal cases can be argued either way. We need to examine it at this AfD on its merits, not by a rote formula.
By the way, is California College of the Arts (your second reference) definitely talking about the same individual? They look different and have different fields of study (graphic arts vs theater). And the third reference is a press release. So by your own standards this individual may not probably does not fulfill GNG. ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Dysklyver, if you are going to appeal to the GNG, it has to be used as it is supposed to be. The GNG is not based on what is reported in the references, but on the fact that there are substantial independent third party references that are not just press releases or notices--the principle behind it is that independent sources find her worth writing about. Consider your references. References 1 and 2 not independent--they will do to establish the basic facts or her career, but are worthless for notability, because it is the bio of her on her own employer's web site. Ref 2 furthermore is unreliable no matter where published because it is not a NPOV description, but unsupported praise of her, and is therefore in the nature of a press release. Reference 3 is a plain press release, labelled as such. All three of this fail the requirements of the GNG, which was written in order to make plain that references such as these do not show notability . I can often argue the detailed requirements of the GNG in either direction, but I can not possibly argue that these three meet it, because they unquestionably do not. If I think she is notable, it would have to be based on some other reason,such as showing she met the requirements at WP:CREATIVE, and can thus be presumed notable, despite the quality of the references. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Agree with everything DGG said, but I'm really wondering if this reference 2, California College of the Arts faculty, is the same person. Unless they can be two places at once it seems unlikely, as they are showing up as available for gigs in NYC and on faculty in San Francisco. ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Karam AboulHoda

Karam AboulHoda (  | 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 a notable businessperson. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 16:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America 1000 00:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

William Smith (registrar)

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

Completely unreferenced biography of a person notable primarily as a court registrar, which is not a notable position in and of itself — it makes him a clerk, not a jurist. The only other real notability claims being made here are that he was the father and grandfather of notable people (but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED) and vague, unsubstantiated claims that he was "prominent" for his marriage (but the article is written so awkwardly that it actually says he was married to an entire ethnic group rather than an individual woman, and while his actual wife is named in his daughter's article, it doesn't actually indicate any reason why his wife would be notable enough to make him "prominent" for marrying her either.) If there were any actual sourcing or substance here, it would probably be fine -- but as written, there's no discernible reason why he would qualify for an article. Bearcat ( talk) 16:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America 1000 00:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Disappearance of Charity Aiyedogbon

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

We are not a missing persons database and, as of now, there is scant evidence that this particular person's disappearance meets WP:NCRIME (despite the article being categorised as a crime). Literally hundreds of thousands of people go missing and quite a few of those do get contemporary mentions in the news media but no lasting notability etc can be gleaned from that. Sitush ( talk) 16:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  • I've given a detailed rationale and it is one that has applied to other recently deleted articles of this type. I even mentioned NCRIME, so I can only assume you didn't actually read what I wrote. Aside from Facebook rumours and a dodgy lawyer, there doesn't actually seem to be any basis for considering this to be a crime. As I said, people disappear all the time - about 250k missing person reports a year in the UK alone. If you want to follow up past discussions, see my recent list of what are now redlinks at Talk:List of people who disappeared mysteriously - click on them and you will get to the discussions themselves. - Sitush ( talk) 08:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I would put it more correctly that your rationale is not sufficient to get this article deleted. The West and other developed countries usually keep data or records of their populations more carefuly and efficiently than their less developed counterparts. As a result, whatever happens to any individual in their territory is usually a big deal. Besides, the Western media often gets information published regarding missing persons unlike their less developed counterparts. This is very glaring since there are hundreds of Wikipedia articles on missing persons from these very countries unlike this lone article about a missing Nigerian woman which unfortunately is the subject of this AFD discussion. In Africa and Nigeria to be precise, missing person cases are often under-reported and for this one to attract significant media coverage, then it means there's something unusual or special about it - Eruditescholar ( talk) 18:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Ah, the systemic bias card. It won't wash because it is nothing more than a run-of-the-mill disappearance. That's also why most of the 250k per annum misper reports in the oh-so-highly-developed UK won't wash either. We are not here to right great wrongs, nor are we a news outlet. - Sitush ( talk) 17:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • You seem to say the same thing at every AfD you participate in, BabbaQ. It sort of loses impact after a while because there never seems to be any sign that you have actually checked anything, hence some bizarre deployments of your boilerplate !keeo. - Sitush ( talk) 17:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • keep per EruditeScholar.
  • Keep  Passes WP:GNG with long-term coverage.  Here is a source from 19 September 2017.  As per WP:BEFORE B3, "If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors..."  Yet there is no discussion on the talk page of the article, and instead there is post-nomination discussion.  Unscintillating ( talk) 23:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Post-nom discussions are common. A BEFORE was done and I wasn't going to bother with discussing it at the talk page simply because perhaps a dozen of similar articles have been deleted in the last couple of weeks. I did mention it at List of people who disappeared mysteriously, which is the meeting point of all such articles. This one is no different from the others: occasional appeals relating to cases do occur but that doesn't make them notable. Go create Wikimissingpersons to complement the failed Wikinews, perhaps? - Sitush ( talk) 14:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • There is, for example, lasting coverage of many minor council officials but they are not considered notable. - Sitush ( talk) 14:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Given Nigeria is such a large country, the fact this particular case has attracted such attention suggests it is not a routine missing-persons case. The coverage seems to go beyond what would be normally expected. AusLondonder ( talk) 14:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Sitush; Seriously? While some of the sources used for this crime-related article come from Facebook; most of them come from multiple reliable sources which actually complement the sources from Facebook. Another thing I have observed until now: While anyone is free to contribute to this AFD discussion, I've observed that you've always seen something wrong with other contributors' input. Countering every contributor in this AFD discussion simply because they didn't vote in your favour is really wierd. I am not the sole determinant of the outcome of this AFD discussion but simply because previous AFD's have always closed in your favour doesn't necessarily mean this one will follow the same trend. There's always a first time. - Eruditescholar ( talk) 15:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
You are misunderstanding me. The story was driven by Facebook, a bit like Twitterstorms get reported in mainstream media. - Sitush ( talk) 15:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict):Comment I agree Facebook is not a reliable source, I'm talking about the coverage in newspapers. Some of that coverage included reporting on a petition from 63 civil society organisations to the police about their handling of the case. The involvement of those organisations suggests it is different to a routine occurrence. The Disappearance of Corrie McKeague is a similar case where Facebook campaigning has been heavily involved; that does not negate the notability of the disappearance. AusLondonder ( talk) 15:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  • I think I am going to give up here. It is obvious to me that Wikipedia is becoming a news website driven by the same social media agendas as tabloid newspapers. To be expected, I suppose: tabloids cater for the lowest-common denominator and, boy, is Wikipedia low. - Sitush ( talk) 15:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G5), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ren Yifan. MER-C 12:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Toi Lam

Toi Lam (  | 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 he is the co-founder of Hong Kong listed companies, I believe he fails individual notability as per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. If the company is notable, this certainly does not mean it's necessarily inherited to the founder as per WP:INHERIT. While there is mention of him, all sources given are business listings or routine company publications which mention him in his role. I have not been able to find editorial or profile articles that focus on the individual. Another point to note is the absence of WP article in the "native" language project. While this is not a strong argument for this discussion, I take this as reference point for an English article. Therefore, I make the case for deletion given a lack of notability. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 15:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Reactions to the March 2016 Istanbul bombing

Reactions to the March 2016 Istanbul bombing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly a QUOTEFARM which should be selectively merge on the main article. Fails WP:GNG. See, concurrent discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2016 Lahore suicide bombing (2nd nomination). Greenbörg (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) J 947( c ) ( m) 19:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Muhammad Sharif (cosmologist)

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

Tamgha-e-Imtiaz is fourth in level so certainly not enough. No widespread coverage for his achievements. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 07:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 07:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Zulfiqar Ahmad

Zulfiqar Ahmad (  | 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 achievement yet. No widespread coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A single source is not sufficient to satisfy notability, and the other keep !vote isn't addressing the notability concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Bashir Syed

Bashir Syed (  | 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:NACADEMICS. Better for CV but not for WP. Greenbörg (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
WP:SINGLESOURCE is not enough for passing WP:GNG. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 05:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Chetan k pandya

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

Run of the mill lawyer. None of the sources even approach significant coverage of the lawyer himself, and nothing more was found in a search. The 'specializations in' bit makes it cler that this article is intended as a promo piece. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ( or here) 12:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 01:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 14:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 16:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

John Hodian

John Hodian (  | 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 is not sufficiently notable Legacypac ( talk) 11:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 01:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 14:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

List of drug interactions

List of drug interactions (  | 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. Extremely limited list. For it to be of any use, it would have to be unmanageably long. If someone is looking for drug interactions, they can look up a specific drug. It duplicates information from each articles' page and not in a format that would ever be useful. Natureium ( talk) 14:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

The only possible use I can think of is if the article was scrapped and List of drug interactions instead gave a list of different types of drug interactions. Natureium ( talk) 14:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete as duplication of the drug articles' interactions sections. For types of interactions, we have Drug interaction. -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 15:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 19:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 19:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete At best incubate. The list/bracket format isn't suited for detailing drug interactions. As is stands it's almost meaningless to anybody who hasn't read more about the specific drug to find out how exactly the interaction works. And the article hasn't seen much improvement over the years. Mr. Magoo ( talk) 19:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Theoretically, there are nearly infinite drug-interactions (for example, every sedative interacts pharmacodynamically with every other medication that causes sedation, all serotonergics interact with each other, etc--and that's not even accounting for all intra-class interactions, let alone drug-disease state interactions (contraindications), all pharmacokinetic interactions--you get the point). Attempting to list them all is like counting sand. There's a reason that massive databases like Lexicomp exist, and WP is not Lexicomp. Furthermore, information like "potentiates" isn't even useful; drug-interactions exist on a spectrum of clinical significance, ranging from theoretical and clinically irrelevant to potentially lethal combinations.― Biochemistry🙴❤ 02:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Liaqat Ali Khan (mathematician)

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

Its more like a CV than a biography of encyclopedic nature. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMICS. Greenbörg (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Please, familiarize yourself with WP:GNG and WP:V because no article can pass GNG with namecheck or single source discussing him. Greenbörg (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 05:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Loel Guinness

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

Purely procedural.Per ticket:2017101010005881.Subject requires deletion.he would like to have a quit private life.......he no longer wants any information circulated on the Internet about him, he wants to live this retreat in anonymity......would like to be outside of all news.Editors are decided to judge the merits of the article and decide whether he is notable enough to sustain an article.Also, see WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 13:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

He doesn't (AFAIK) have any descendants? Are you thinking of the right person here?
WP:N might not be inherited, but money is. Being a rich member of the Guinness clan does place one within a milieu where notability is very easily acquired.
The question here is whether WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE should be followed, as requested, or not. Is a member of the Guinness family WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE?
I am puzzled by your content removals so far. You have removed material that is accurate and not derogatory (if we keep the article, we should keep it), yet left the specific piece of content that is complained of and only based on two poor quality sources. If anything goes, that should go first. Andy Dingley ( talk) 13:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
I removed details of his sister's husbands, I don't see how they have any relevance whatsoever to the article. Theroadislong ( talk) 14:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Niarchos is supposed to have been a close friend and influence on his own philanthropy Andy Dingley ( talk) 14:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Feel free to add back with any sources that mention it, the article is VERY poorly sourced at the moment. Theroadislong ( talk) 14:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Agreed. And yet you're keeping the most problematic part of it? Andy Dingley ( talk) 14:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Well it is sourced, unlike virtually everything else! Theroadislong ( talk) 14:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 07:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 07:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 07:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Murat Arslan

Murat Arslan (  | 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 significant coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources. Sole claim to notability appears to be cheating an online poll in 1998. –  Joe ( talk) 11:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –  Joe ( talk) 11:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. –  Joe ( talk) 11:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. –  Joe ( talk) 11:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. –  Joe ( talk) 11:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) J 947( c ) ( m) 19:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Transaviabaltika

Transaviabaltika (  | 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:NCORP. Little evidence from article or source search of notability per WP:GNG i.e. significant coverage in reliable sources. DrStrauss talk 10:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The rationale for deletion isn't on grounds of verifiability, it's on grounds of notability, specifically, significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. DrStrauss talk 18:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I've inserted sources from Estonia's publically-funded television and radio studio, complete with pictures, to show that Transaviabaltika has been operating in Estonia since 2016, and is contracted to do so until 2019. Axeman89 ( talk) 15:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep We have always considered all scheduled passenger airlines notable. WP is very inclusive about transportation. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- airlines with scheduled services are generally kept, even if small / regional. There's some opportunity for expansion, such as:
  • Lithuanian carrier Transaviabaltika submitted the winning tender in a procurement announced by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications last year for the operation of subsidized flights between the Estonian mainland and the capitals of its two largest Western islands. Transaviabaltika's contract was signed through May 31, 2019. source.
K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 criterion WP:G5. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ren Yifan. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 15:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Tse Kam Pang

Tse Kam Pang (  | 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 he is the CEO and founder of a Hong Kong listed company, I believe he fails individual notability as per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. If the company is notable, this certainly does not mean it's necessarily inherited to the founder as per WP:INHERIT. While there is mention of him, all sources given are business listings or routine company publications which mention him in his role. I have not been able to find editorial or profile articles that focus on the individual. Another point to note is the absence of WP article in the "native" language project. While this is not a strong argument for this discussion, I take this as reference point for an English article. Therefore, I make the case for deletion given a lack of notability. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) J 947( c ) ( m) 19:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

UTStarcom

UTStarcom (  | 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 lot of the article is advertisement-y. Probably does not meet WP:CORP - around half the few sources are from the company's webpage. Nerd1a4i ( talk) 00:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Sull, Donald N.; Wang, Yong (2005). Made In China: What Western Managers Can Learn from Trailblazing Chinese Entrepreneurs. Boston: Harvard Business Publishing. pp. 166–187. ISBN  1422163385. Retrieved 2017-10-11.

      The book notes on page 12:

      UTStarcom. Founded in 1995 through the merger of two telecommunications start-ups headquarted in the United States but focused on the Chinese market, UTStarcom has grown its revenues from $10 million in 1995 to $2 billion in 2003, a performance that landed UTStarcom a place on the 2003 Fortune 1000. UTStarcom achieved its rapid growth by developing and selling its "Personal Access System," which enables cordless phones to rove up to 60 miles within a city limit. At the end of 2003, UTStarcom's equipment served over 20 million customers in China, and the company exported telecommunications equipment to emerging markets such as India and to developed countries, including Japan and the United States. The company, which employs approximately 5,000, trades on the NASDAQ exchange and had a market capitalization exceeding $4 billion in September 2004.

      The book further notes on page 168:

      The Foundation of UTStarcom

      UTStarcom traces its routes back not to one entrepreneur, but to two—Hong Lu and Ying Wu, who independently founded the two companies that would later merge to become UTStarcom.

      The book further notes on pages 184–185:

      Although some constraints, such as cash management, are common across companies, others are company specific and often surprising. When UTStarcom started winning contracts from local operators in the late 1990s, for example, managmenet realized that the high price of Japanese-made handsets—which UTStarcom bought and resold at cost for $215—would dampen end-user demand for PAS systems. If end users couldn't afford the handsets, local telecommunications bureaus would not buy UTStarcom's equipment and the game would be over before it really began. UTStarcom initially tried outsourcing production to a Taiwanese company, but the contract manufacturers could only cut costs by 50 percent. Reluctantly, UTStarcom executives decided to design and manufacture the handsets themselves in China to bring costs below the $55 to $60 price point they felt was required to ensure widespread consumer adoption. UTStarcom's continued growth also depended on continued support (or, at minimum, tolerance) of PAS from the Ministry of Information Industry. Managing this constraint required UTStarcom to devote more attention to lobbying than would be typical for many start-ups.

      The company is profiled in detail on pages 166–187.
    2. Lee, Ellen (2005-09-18). "Utstarcom Eyes Market for Expansion - Alameda-Based Firm Loses Momentum in the Telecommunications Industry After Explosive Growth in Chinese Market". Contra Costa Times. Archived from the original on 2017-10-11. Retrieved 2017-10-11.

      The article notes:

      If UTStarcom Inc.'s saga were described with popular catchphrases, it'd go something like this: At the right place at the right time. All good things must come to an end. Been there, done that. Now what?

      During the late 1990s, the Alameda-based telecommunications equipment maker found an overlooked opportunity in China's emerging telecommunications market: China didn't have the infrastructure to offer reliable landline telephone calls, nor could it depend on cell phones, which were too expensive.

      Then came UTStarcom, which offered a hybrid: a telephone that acted like a mobile phone and looked like a mobile phone, but was based off of traditional landlines and only operated within city limits. UTStarcom sold the technology, called the Personal Access System, or PAS, to two of China's major carriers, China Netcom and China Telecom, and now has 47.5 million of China's 82.8 million PAS subscribers.

      The bet paid off: Named one of the nations' fastest-growing businesses by Business Week, Forbes and others, it saw its revenues more than double from $981.8 million in 2002 to nearly $2 billion in 2003.

    3. Grady, Barbara (2006-06-22). "Wireless player's revenue declines UTStarcom posts loss". Bay Area News Group. Archived from the original on 2017-10-11. Retrieved 2017-10-11.

      The article notes:

      UTStarcom Inc., the Alameda-based manufacturer of wireless telecommunications gear, posted a big drop in revenues for the first quarter of the year and a net loss — but the loss was not nearly as bad as the troubled company expected.

      UTStarcom has been in the midst of a major turnaround, both in operations and in products, after a year in which government agencies investigated its finances and customers seemed less interested in its major product.

      On Wednesday, UTStarcom reported first-quarter revenue of $596.6 million, down more than a third from $901.9 million in the same quarter last year, when it posted a profit.

      But the quarter’s net loss of 9 cents a share, or $10.6 million, was not nearly as bad as the 65 cents a share loss the company had warned Wall Street analysts was likely. Its cash flow was stronger than it has been and its profit margins higher.

    4. Heim, Kristi (2004-05-11). "Wireless Wonder - Alameda Company Finds Mobile Gold Mine in China". The Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2017-10-11. Retrieved 2017-10-11.

      The article notes:

      Street sweepers and grandmothers in China are helping a Bay Area telecom company strike it rich.

      UTStarcom has prospered by selling a low-cost mobile phone system to meet the needs of common people in China. And it has succeeded by blending Silicon Valley smarts, management and money with China's manufacturing ability and insatiable appetite for phone services.

      The idea behind UTStarcom started when Hong Lu, UTStarcom's chief executive, visited China in 1990 and had to dial 100 times to complete a call from Beijing to Shenzhen. He knew the country's decrepit phone system needed an upgrade.

      Lu started a company and initially focused on selling fixed-wire equipment but soon found a better option. Reviving a Japanese technology that was all but abandoned, Lu offered a way for Chinese phone companies to make the leap into wireless.

      The article also notes:

      box) When founded: 1991 as Unitech Telecom, which merged with Starcom Networks in 1995 to form UTStarcom.

      (box) Headquarters: Alameda

      (box) IPO: March 2000

      (box) Employees: 5,500 worldwide, including 4,600 in China and 500 in the United States

      (box) CEO: Hong Lu, 49

      (box) 2003 profit: $202 million, up 87 percent from 2002

      (box) 2003 sales: $1.96 billion, up 100 percent from 2002

    5. Barboza, David (2010-01-01). "Telecom Company to Pay $3 Million in China Bribe Case". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2017-10-11. Retrieved 2017-10-11.

      The article notes:

      For UTStarcom, which is based in Alameda, Calif., China is a crucial market. One of the company’s founders is a Chinese-born American, and most of the company’s operations and employees are based in China.

      UTStarcom, which sells networking and broadband equipment, has for the last decade sold large quantities of goods to three of China’s biggest government-owned telecommunications companies: China Netcom, China Telecom and China Mobile.

      S.E.C. officials said employees from many of the company’s big Chinese clients accepted bribes.

      ...

      The settlement comes at a difficult time for UTStarcom. The company is suffering through a sharp downturn in sales. It lost over $185 million in the first three quarters of 2008 and recently sold one of its plants in China.

    6. Malik, Om; Copeland, Michael V. (2003-10-01). "B2 100 The Fastest-Growing Technology Companies In our annual ranking of tech's supercharged, a company most people never heard of grabbed the No. 1 slot with a not-so-simple feat: It made a fortune in China". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2017-10-11. Retrieved 2017-10-11.

      The article notes:

      With its corporate headquarters in Alameda, Calif., Lu's company, UTStarcom, made a long-term bet on China, building most of its equipment there. That helped it win goodwill--and its products, which were cheap, smart, and engineered with Chinese users in mind, won customers. The firm has made $2 billion in China since 2000 and now employs 4,700 workers worldwide.

      And by all accounts, the company is just getting started. Its contrarian formula is easily exportable: Set up shop in-country, partner with the biggest phone company, and above all, make supercheap products that are minutely customized to local needs. Indeed, Lu is using the same business model in India, Indonesia, and Vietnam.

      It's that kind of thinking--taking calculated risks, going where the opportunities are, thinking about what the market really wants--that took UTStarcom to the top of Business 2.0's annual ranking of the fastest-growing tech companies. Its net income has grown 72 percent annually since 2000; this year alone the firm is expected to report $190 million in net profit on $1.8 billion in revenue. Don't think Wall Street hasn't noticed: UTStarcom's stock is up 112 percent so far this year--four times as much as the average stock on the rocketing Nasdaq--to $42.81 near the end of August.

    7. Hutheesing, Nikhil (2005-06-29). "UTStarcom Grasps For New Growth". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2017-10-11. Retrieved 2017-10-11.

      The article notes:

      Shares of UTStarcom continue to slide, and the stock now trades in the low $7 range–close to its 52-week low. The news for this once high-flying company, which provides telecom equipment mostly to service providers in China, has been dismal lately.

      ...

      While it will take a while for this company to win back investor confidence, it’s important to realize that the bad news is not a death sentence for the technology. PAS remains a low-cost alternative that allows people to use their cordless phones at home and then take them with them no matter where they go within city limits–and still make and receive phone calls. It’s a big business for China’s service providers.

      UTStarcom’s PAS business will still account for about $1 billion in sales this year, and probably next year, and I wouldn’t be surprised if at some point–maybe a year or two from now–demand from the service providers will pick up again for PAS products.

    8. Hutheesing, Nikhil (2003-09-23). "Will UTStarcom Get Shanghaied?". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2017-10-11. Retrieved 2017-10-11.

      The article notes:

      Though UTStarcom is based in the U.S., it is actually a wireless play on the fast-growing market for mobile phones in China. Founded in 1991, this provider of telecom infrastructure, software and handsets operates in a fast-growing market–China. The company does most of its business out of its offices in Beijing. UTSI has three joint ventures that include two manufacturing operations that it owns jointly with the Telecommunications Administrations in Guangdong and Zhejiang provinces. It also operates 12 customer support and sales centers around China.

      The company is run by two executives that are highly regarded internationally. Its chief executive, Hong Liang Lu Hong Liang Lu , was once the CEO of Kyocera Unison , a subsidiary of Kyocera International . Its vice chairman, Ying Wu Ying Wu , was once a member of the technical staff of Bellcore (now Telcordia ) and was a consultant to AT&T Bell Labs, now part of Lucent Technologies.

      UTStarcom offers the Chinese an affordable mobile service in nearly 300 cities, from Hangzhou to Xian. In China the prevailing wireless system is known as PAS, for Personal Access System. UTSI’s version of PAS dominates the market with a 60% share. UTSI’s clients include hundreds of small telephone providers in China, who in turn provide service for roughly 5 million people. Lucent Technologies and the Shenzhen, Guangdong-based Zhongxing Telecom sell their own PAS systems. They account for the remaining 40% of the market. At UTStarcom, sales of PAS equipment, service and handsets account for about 85% of its revenue.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow UTStarcom to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 05:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train talk 07:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Doug Ralph

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

Despite what superficially looks like a lot of sources, none of them are actually sufficient for WP:GNG - they are all either not independent or not significant, as detailed more fully in the previous AfD (which was no consensus). In the interests of full disclosure I will link the two more recent links I have found: this from "ABC Open", which is clearly not part of the ABC's editorial news coverage, and this which mentions that he was commemorated in parliament, which is nice but not unusual for local, non-notable community leaders. Frickeg ( talk) 07:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Frickeg ( talk) 07:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Both the article and the references read like eulogies, which isn't disqualifying by itself, but here they are indicative that most of the sources lack Independence of the subject. No significant coverage in independent sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Waiting for more participation to analyze depth of sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 01:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 08:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 08:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete. Seems to fail POL and AUTHOR. Sources do not establish GNG, and a BEFORE does not find much more. He might pass with a bit mpre high quality sources, but not at current level. Icewhiz ( talk) 21:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train talk 07:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Carly Mathis

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

Mathis' only notice has been winning Miss Georgia. This is not enough to show notability. The sources here and other sources are all just local sources reporting on this at the time, not enough to create actual notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • How are these passing mentions if the articles are about Mathis? Your ridiculous claims here and elsewhere prove that you should not be part of any AfDs because all you do is mislead people, have articles on women removed, and replace these by articles on obscure Mormons worldwide. gidonb ( talk) 04:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The WIS article os not in any way about Mathis, it is about the beauty pageant itself. The WAVE article is about a fluff action by a county comission, not the type of article that adds towards GNG. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The WXIX from Ohio is also in no way a substantial coverage of Mathis. It is actually the same article that ran in South Carolina, word for word. It is about the pageant, not in any way, shape, means or form about Mathis. Name dropping is not the stuff of passing GNG. The previous keep votes have significantly misrepresented the non-coverage involved here, and totally misconstrued GNG. The discussion on beauty pageant articles agreed they either need significant, indepdent, multi-state coverage of the subject, not just name dropping of the win itself, or sustained coverage for points unrelated to the beauty pageant itself. Neither of these are met by what amounts to name dropping articles that are repeated by stations in multiple locations without saying anything substantial about Mathis. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- no indications of notability or significance outside of the pageant career, and that alone has been established at AfD to not be sufficient to keep an article. Per prior outcomes, such articles are routinely deleted. Nothing stands out about this subject; the article consists mostly of trivia, as in:
  • "Mathis’ platform is “Heart Health and Heart Safety” and she said she hoped to work with the American Heart Association..." etc.
K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train talk 07:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Sweetman (disambiguation)

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

Ordinary, orphan WP:2DABS page. Disambiguation is not required: primary topic has a hatnote to the other use. De-PRODed by Patar knight. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 08:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Mark the train Discuss 09:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Mark the train Discuss 09:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Soft deletion functionally equivalent to an uncontested PROD Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 20:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Kamui (video game)

Kamui (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)

Sources are lacking outside of a few announcement articles. Did not get significant secondary coverage to pass WP:GNG. Sources in article are mainly WP:PRIMARY. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 11:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  11:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  11:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Directus

Directus (  | 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 software system excluded from Wikipedia by failing both parts of the test of WP:N: it is written is current marketing speak for software and created wholesale by an apparent SPA, making it excluded by WP:NOTSPAM. It also fails to gain significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are intellectually independent of the subject, making it fail the general notability guideline. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train talk 09:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Sachiko Watanabe

Sachiko Watanabe (  | 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:POLITICIAN - local politician with little coverage in independent, reliable sources. DrStrauss talk 13:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - Well, there is a ja.wiki article with a few sources. And it looks like they were tapped for a national taskforce related to wasteful public spending. She was apparently the keynote speaker and... some... sort of academic conference. It's really hard to say definitively without someone who can weigh in on the non-English sources. But it is easy to suspect that the reason we have a substantial article on the mayor of Chattanooga and not on the mayor of Tama, is because there are more people around who speak Tennessee than speak Japanese. GMG talk 14:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better. I can't read Japanese, so I can't speak to whether the Japanese sources on the ja wiki are reliable or substantive — I can only evaluate this on the basis of what's present in the English version. But once I stripped the inappropriate bulletlist of unsourced quotations and the pointless comment on how her first and last names are so common that her name is basically the Japanese equivalent of "John Smith", all that was left is "she exists". And the only reference cited at all is a single article in a university student publication about her speaking at a conference. The difference between this and Andy Berke isn't that more people here speak Tennessee than Japanese; it's that Andy Berke's article actually contains substance and reliable sources, neither of which are present here. And since AFD does not represent a permanent ban on the subject ever having an article at all, deletion of this inadequate version does not prevent somebody from trying again if they can do better. She'd surely be kept if somebody who can read Japanese could write and source a halfway decent article — but there's no need to keep a stub that's this unsubstantive and this poorly sourced. Bearcat ( talk) 17:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It is clear that the subject was/is the Mayor of Tama, Tokyo, with a population of 140,000+. The Japanese Wiki site has several links to articles about the subject in the Tama New Town Times and a link to a Geocities site which appears to have election results from 2002. There is also this article in Stars and Stripes (newspaper) referring to the subject as the Mayor. That all said, while I expect that the subject is notable, I am not quite confident that the existing sourcing is sufficient for a local politician (see WP:POLOUTCOMES). Perhaps the article should be tagged with WP:AFI -- Enos733 ( talk) 16:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could use a few more Japanese readers to weigh in on sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train talk 08:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 05:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Newton Running

Newton Running (  | 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 in-depth coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 08:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mark the train Discuss 09:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America 1000 01:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

SeaRise Office Tower

SeaRise Office Tower (  | 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 office building, one of a whole pile of such by the same editor. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/501 7th Avenue for example. DMacks ( talk) 20:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, quite a nicely constructed article, although the missing "history" from the building's 1976 construction to 2007 and then another gap until 2016 is a bit of a worry, but how is it notable to warrant an article, ie. any architecture/construction awards? is it historically significant? at the moment it exists and thats about it. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment  [22] says that the price paid per square foot was a record at the time.  I'm not yet sure about the size, it mentions 128,000 sq ft, but is that the sq ft per floor?  From the pictures, there appear to be about seven floors. 
    But...there is a company listed on the NYSE that is documented here, and we don't have an article on that company.  Unscintillating ( talk) 19:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- an advertorially toned page on an unremarkable office building, including the lead sentence that advertises it as:
  • "...a premier Class A office building ..."
The rest of the content is routine corporate developments, no encyclopedic value here. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Nomiki Konst

Nomiki Konst (  | 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 page should be deleted for the simple reason that she is not notable enough. There are two reliable sources in this article: two Arizona Daily Star articles about her announcement that she would run in the Democratic primary for a 2012 congressional seat as a recent University of Arizona graduate. If two 5-yr old articles is all there is, then she's not notable. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 07:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep There are 7 sources in the article, Aside from her 2012 candidacy, Konst is with The Young Turks, is regularly in the media and is part of the DNC unity commission. Plenty notable. Mo2010 ( talk) 09:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

These are the sources in the article: (i) A tweet, (ii) A website called "Zonie.com", (iii) a Youtube video from the crackpots at the Young Turks, (iv) the two Arizona Daily Star articles that I mentioned, (v) a Hill article that you just added (this Hill article mentions Konst once and it's in a list of people), and (vi) a government website listing Konst as one of the primary candidates in the 2012 election. If this individual is notable, you sure as hell can't tell it from the sourcing. The page looks like it was written by Konst to promote herself. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 09:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
"a Youtube video from the crackpots at the Young Turks" I see this is political more than an actual concern about sourcing. You not agreeing with The Young Turks is not a legitimate reason to delete this article. Mo2010 ( talk) 19:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Which is why I provided a different reason for deleting this article. I wouldn't call for the deletion of Jimmy Dore's or Cenk Uygur's pages because they are actually notable and have some RS coverage. Konst doesn't and this page is in violation of Wiki policy. Konst being willing to slap together her own Wikipedia page, doesn't mean she gets one. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
I have added additional sourcing including from The Washington Post and Mediaite that cover her and for the record I am the one that originally created this page. Mo2010 ( talk) 5:29 , 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The following sources have been added to the article: (i) a link to the website of a show she used to host, (ii) a story by the 'National Herald', which I've never heard of before but which describes itself as the "only daily Greek language publication in North America", (iii) a self-published Forbes op-ed, (iv) a brief Mediaite piece that mentions her once, and (v) a WaPo piece that actually covers her at length but only as a way to show how Sanders supporters responded to his loss in the Democratic primary. It's a narrative piece that takes one individual and looks at how he/she reacted to something (similar to stories of how Trump supporter X reacted to Trump action Y). The WaPo piece does not cover her as a notable individual who has accomplished things. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 10:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply
First the Forbes Op-ed is an interview piece not self published that covers her as an notable individual who has accomplished things. The Mediaite piece is about her and what happened to her at a protest she was covering in New York City. The WoPo piece partly covered her work to negotiate a trues between Bernie supporters and the Clinton campaign. She has more notable sources than Emma Vigeland, John Iadarola, Jacob Soboroff and others who are all similar to her but she is not notable enough for you despite having 12 independent sources. If they are notable than she is notable. Mo2010 ( talk) 21:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Those pages should also be deleted. Thanks for pointing them out. I'll take the appropriate action. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Actually, I can't. It might skirt a ban that the admins custom-made for me. I therefore encourage others reading this to request the deletion of those pages. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply
If you are banned from deleting those pages you should be banned from deleting this one. Mo2010 ( talk) 20:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
I'd like to point out that she helped write the DNC platform, is on the DNC reform commission, she appears on Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and others. When Keith Ellison was accused of being an Anti Semite when running for DNC Chair....who did MSNBC ask to come on? Nomiki Konst. When Vox was reporting on Kamala Harris 2020 prospects, who did they ask for comment? Nomiki. When Time Magizine was reporting on 2020 prospects, who did they ask? Nomiki. When Newsweek was reporting on 2020 prospects who did they ask for comment? Nomiki. I can go on and on if you want, I can go and catalouge every notable act she has done for the last couple of years and believe me, it will blow her current page out of the water
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 05:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 05:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. We do not have 12 independent sources here, as the creator claims. Right off the bat, four sources are not independent of her: #1 is her own primary source profile on the website of her agent; #2 is her own Twitter; #3 is a press release from a company she's worked for; #11 is content distributed by the show she works for. That's four primary sources that cannot assist notability at all, already. Then there are four more sources that cannot assist notability at all for different reasons: Mediaite is not a reliable source at all; the Arizona Secretary of State is a type of WP:ROUTINE source that every candidate in any election could always show regardless of their notability or lack thereof, because there's always an "all of the registered candidates" directory on the website of the relevant elections authority; one just namechecks her existence a single time in an article that isn't about her; and Q&A interviews can be used as supplementary sourcing for stray facts after notability has already been covered off, but cannot be bringers of notability as such because they represent the subject talking about herself.
    Which leaves us assessing four GNG-eligible sources, not 12: but of those four, two exist solely in the context of her candidacy for an election that she didn't win, one exists solely in the context of her having been a delegate to the presidential primaries, and one exists solely in the context of her being ethnically Greek. But being a non-winning candidate in an election is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia — she has to win the election, not just run in it, to be considered notable as a politician — and showing two sources about her candidacy doesn't make it special, because every candidate in any election could always show two sources about that. Being a primary delegate is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself, and being Greek is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself.
    As for being notable as a broadcaster, no reliable source coverage about that work has been shown at all — broadcasters have to be the subject of coverage in media outlets other than their own employer to qualify for Wikipedia articles, not just to be nominally verifiable in their employer's own self-published content. So, for all of those reasons, nothing here properly demonstrates that she qualifies for an article either as a broadcaster or as a politician. Bearcat ( talk) 23:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete candidates for congress are not notable for that, and her other actions do not rise to the level of being notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

This is a politically motivated action, https://twitter.com/bravenak/status/920148228506402817

There is a group of Hillary Clinton supporters on Twitter right now, laughing it up, acting as if "Wikipedia" is deleting this page bcos she isn't "Notable" enough. This is not true, this is not even how it works. I'm not sure who started this move to delete her page, but my guess is that they are also part of this same group.

Currently twitter users @UnseatBernie and @Bravenak are encouraging people to come here and state that all we really care about is sources.....and integrity of wikipedia....and yadah yah.

This is low, please don't fall for this nonsense, these are the same people trying to get her kicked off the DNC Reform Commission, get her kicked off TYT, get her kicked out of Womens Convention, etc, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shandunt ( talk • contribs) 07:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Unfortunate though that may be, we do not keep Wikipedia articles just to help the subject spite their opponents in a political dispute — we keep articles about people who can be properly sourced as passing a specific notability criterion. Bearcat ( talk) 18:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
- literally just do a basic google search and you will see that her name is mentioned across most of the mainstream press.....Nobody was advocating to create Nomiki's page out of spite - I was informing you that the exact opposite is happening. NOmiki's page was organically created a while ago without fuss....no one took issue with it UNTIL a bunch of clinton supporters started a campaign to erase her from as many sites as possible, including this one.

So what I am suggesting is to take with a grain of salt, many of the comments here, including mine, and compare Nomiki to her peers which also have pages on wikipedia which no one is contesting at the moment....look at how selective the concern is, is Marissa_Johnson really more notable than Nomiki Konst? Nomiki is a regular invited to give comment or appear on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, Time, The Blaze, Huffington Post. She is a reporter for TYT, an activist, a protester, Nomiki helped write the DNC Platform - SHE HELPED WRITE THE DNC PLATFORM, Nomiki is part of the DNC Reform commission, Nomiki is speaking at the womens convention, Nomiki has spoken at dozens of political events, she is regularly asked for comment by outlets like Vox, MIC, and many others. - literally just do a basic google search and you will see that her name is mentioned across most of the mainstream press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shandunt ( talk • contribs) 01:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete for lack of, well, notability. she has participated in founding a number of minor organizations; she ran for a party nomination to a seat in Congress, which produced a little ROUTINE coverage; and there was a profile of her as a delegate to her party's national convention - all of which fails to support notability. she's youngish; perhaps it is merely WP:TOOSOON, although lots of people do good work in activist movements and as party activists for a lifetime; even going to every state and national Party convention as a Delegate for decades without every becoming notable. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:BASIC as Konst has not "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Tweets and routine coverage related to a failed candidacy does not source a BLP. AusLondonder ( talk) 14:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I concur with most of the arguments about lack of independent secondary sources and lack of notability. It is possible that Ms. Konst may become suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia at a later date, but as matters stand now, I do not believe she meets the criteria for inclusion. Charlie GALVIN ( talk) 17:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Scout’s Oath (film)

Scout’s Oath (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)

Article about a short film, whose only stated claim of notability per WP:NFILM is that it exists. That would be all the notability it required if the article were referenced to enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG -- but the only references here are its own self-published Kickstarter and the primary source website of a film festival where it screened. As always, every film does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- we need to see reliable source coverage about the film in media, not just primary-source verification that it exists. Bearcat ( talk) 20:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply

First of all, it's a stub about a film short, that doesn't make the article less notable. I found the following sources:
Among others. -- evrik ( talk) 20:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
First of all, certainly short films aren't inherently less notable than feature films are, but feature films don't get an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist either — there are specific notability standards, spelled out at WP:NFILM, that a film has to meet to earn a Wikipedia article regardless of whether it's a feature or a short or a documentary or what. But none of those are sources that bolster notability at all: three of the five are just profiles on the program websites of film festivals that screened it, which are directly affiliated sources that cannot assist passage of WP:GNG, and both of the other two are blogs, which are never acceptable or reliable sources for anything. So no, none of those sources cut any mustard whatsoever. Bearcat ( talk) 22:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Procedural keep-I could have sworn this article already existed. It could use a little more meat and more independent sourcing, but I must question the AFDing of an article two hours old, written by a Wiki veteran of a decade, without going through the time-honored notability/refimprove tagging first.-- Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 01:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment It would have been nice to have been given more than two house to let the article grow. Here is another source:
We're not looking for coverage about the original lawsuit that the film was about — we're looking for coverage about the film as a film. That source would be perfectly fine for some verification of facts in the article, but it doesn't speak to the notability of the film at all, because it isn't about the film. And no, nobody owes you any particular amount of time to improve the article, either — you can always work on it in draft form, such as through WP:AFC or in your own user sandbox, but to be in articlespace today it has to already meet articlespace standards today. Bearcat ( talk) 14:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC) reply
There is enough here to let the article mature and give it time to grow. -- evrik ( talk) 17:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply
No, there isn't. The inclusion yardstick is measuring the sources, not the content, and there are no sources present here that are both reliable and about the film — every source is one of those things or the other, and none of them is both. Bearcat ( talk) 02:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 10:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The articles from newspapers are not about the film, but are both about the original lawsuit that the film happens to profile. As I already pointed out above, what we require is reliable source coverage about the film as a film — newspaper articles about the lawsuit, written 15 years before the film existed, do not assist in demonstrating the notability of the film. And exactly none of the sources that are about the film are reliable or notability-assisting ones at all. Bearcat ( talk) 17:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Article_alerts#AfD. -- evrik ( talk) 15:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion about the sources please. Additionally, if the sources are all talking about a notable incident and not the film itself, is there scope to make an article about the incident and redirect the film title there?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train talk 07:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for, above all, failing WP:GNG. The references are listings of where the film was shown or news stories about the events in the film, but not of the film itself. Perhaps the incidents are notable enough for an article creation - but that is not the debate here. Redirecting makes no sense if there's nothing to redirect too. Consensus appears very clear to delete. Ifnord ( talk) 15:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America 1000 01:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Stockland Traralgon

AfDs for this article:
Stockland Traralgon (  | 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:ORG and WP:GNG. at the last AfD the keep !votes were hardly convincing. there is nothing to suggest this is more than a run of the mill shopping centre. LibStar ( talk) 01:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply
This AFD is going to keep going round and round in circles. If there are sources that establish notability, add them, if not don't bother keeping the articles. Ajf773 ( talk) 00:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply
and I wouldn't count reports of assaults as adding to notability. LibStar ( talk) 02:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep  A list of sources is provided at the first AfD.  Further sources were identified at the "Morwell library and read up a lot about the opening in back issues of The Express newspaper."  That may be the same offline newspaper mentioned in that AfD as "Latrobe Valley Express".  Unscintillating ( talk) 22:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • And the sources provided in the first AFD were not even verified. In fact only two of them are online sources and neither of which mention anything other than trivial mentions. Ajf773 ( talk) 03:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Not sure what your point is.  What you are calling a "trivial mention", Laura Hale says, "The first mention puts the shopping mall as existing during the 1980s.." which is significant information she then uses to show that this was before the internet age. 
  • I have already shown that you mispoke about what constitutes a trivial mention.  I did this by comparing one of your statements with one of those by Laura Hale.  Your explanation here is of the form that anything that is not a claim to fame is a trivial mention.  The lede of WP:Notability states, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below."  And GNG discusses "trivial" without mentioning claims to fame.  Unscintillating ( talk) 03:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

What is the difference between listing the sources at the AfD and listing them in the article?  If offline, they would be just as inaccessible, and equally verifiable.  Some of those look like they should be available online.  The citations themselves serve as evidence, which is formally what WP:N requires.  You've got a testimony of reading sources at the Morwell library, "...I visited Morwell library and read up a lot about the opening in back issues of The Express newspaper."  Unscintillating ( talk) 03:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note the emphasis on the word "consider". A bunch of sources doesn't mean jack unless it clearly demonstrates a notable claim which I fail to see. Ajf773 ( talk) 08:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
But Wikipedia doesn't use a "notable claim" as a metric...I've already quoted from the guideline on that point.  We as a community figured out long ago that the opinions of individual editors could not be used as a metric.  Unscintillating ( talk) 12:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further discovery and evaluation of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric On leave 05:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. None of the editors arguing to delete addressed the academic citations uncovered by Piotrus. A Train talk 07:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Transracial (identity)

Transracial (identity) (  | 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've declined G4 on this as the content, and in particular the sources, are substantially different to the previously deleted version. However, given that an article on the same subject was deleted as the result of this discussion two years ago, I think it would be good to have a debate on this (relatively stub-ish) article. The sourcing has improved slightly in the meantime, with some academic texts addressing the topic, but I'm doubtful that it meets GNG as yet. GoldenRing ( talk) 08:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
For Rachel Dolezal:
For another individual:
In short, the concept is notable, has notable press coverage, and passes WP:GNG. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 03:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Those are mostly great examples of why there should be an article for Rachel Dolezal. But this supposed theory of transracial identity does not have notable academic usage or discussion in reliable sources dedicated to the topic. They’re nearly all dedicated to Dolezal. Having a separate page for this lends undue weight to it as a topic of its own right. Shelbystripes ( talk) 03:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Those sources put the term in quotes e.g ‘Transracial’ vs. Transgender. This indicates it is not an established term and this article should be titled "Transracial", but we don't have articles like that because that's not what encyclopedias do.-- Pontificalibus ( talk) 07:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric On leave 05:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not an established term as evidenced by the vast majority of reliable sources using scare quotes. Therefore it's not even suitable for a dictionary let alone an encyclopedia article. -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 07:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NEO and WP:TOOSOON. Not an well-established term (vast majority of reliable sources using scare quotes). Wikipedia's Rachel Dolezal article says she resigned from her NAACP position and that she committed several lies. desmay ( talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train talk 07:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I'm on Fire (mixtape)

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

Created by a confirmed sock. Basically fails WP:NALBUM — Oluwa2Chainz »» ( talk to me) 16:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Oluwa2Chainz »» ( talk to me) 16:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — Oluwa2Chainz »» ( talk to me) 16:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Not surprised, article creator is a sock of yourself per this investigation. — Oluwa2Chainz »» ( talk to me) 21:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Oh yes you are right, but that was like 4 years ago and I was just coming back from a long hiatus and didn't know what sock puppetry was at the time. Stanleytux ( talk) 23:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Point out reliable sources/critical reviews about the album. — Oluwa2Chainz »» ( talk to me) 23:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Most of links are dead. Why don't you check the archives or the ones I provided already at the other discussion about the artist. Stanleytux ( talk) 23:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric On leave 05:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
There's significant coverage in multiple reliable sources including Leadership, Vanguard, and The Guardian. Stanleytux ( talk) 06:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: - fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM Samat lib ( talk) 15:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. The mixtape definitely fails WP:NALBUM when looked at in detail. A Google search doesn't show the mixtape being discussed in detail. Of all the sources cited in the article and in this AFD, the Nigerian Sounds source is the only source that dicusses the album. Using the charting argument to justify a delete is invalid here since Nigeria doesn't have a national music chart system. The music scene in Nigeria and majority of Africa isn't well structured. If the mixtape was critically reviewed by Pulse Nigeria or Nigeria Entertainment Today, I would easily vote keep. The mixtape may not be popular across Nigeria, but it is definitely popular in PH. 50,000+ downloads certainly proves this. The Nigerian Sounds source alone is not enough for stand-alone inclusion.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 22:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train talk 07:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Senator International

Senator International (  | 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 am unconvinced that this company meets the notability requirements of WP:CORP. The references cited are predominantly primary sources or in a specialist publication that is of little use for demonstrating notability. More mainstream coverage (but still local) predominantly discusses the airport the company flies to, rather than the company itself. My own searches have not turned up anything better and so unless I have missed something, I think it falls short of meeting our requirements. SmartSE ( talk) 20:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The on-line sources are less than impressive:
  1. [25] is the website of the subject
  2. [26] This seems to be the only article with a byline. I'm not sure that it mentions anything we would find notable. It's used to support the statement "Since November 2016, "Senator International" has offered its own scheduled service from Munich and Frankfurt-Hahn to Greenville-Spartanburg using a Boeing 747 F."
  3. [27] That website doesn't seem to work; all I see is a logo.
  4. [28] Mentions a "a noteworthy biz model involving 4 parties". As far as I'm concerned, it's just another way of leasing a cargo plane.
  5. [29] is the website of a company the subject merged with
  6. [30] is the website of a company the formed a joint-venture with
  7. [31] Looks like a press release from München aiport announce that the subject leased a plane from Air Atlanta Icelandic. That's a routine anouncement, not news, and definitely not encyclopedic.
  8. [32] is the website of the subject
  9. [33] is the website of the subject
  10. [34] is the website of the subject
  11. [35] is the website of the subject
  12. [36] is the website of the subject
  13. [37] is the website of the subject
  14. [38] is the website of the subject
  15. [39] is the website of the subject
  16. [40] is a Business-to-business database
TLDR; It's an advertisement about a company that does not meet our general notability criteria and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. It is perhaps worth noting that a major contributor is a paid editor (no surprise, really). It takes some poking around, because User:Atomiccocktail and User: Einfach machen Hamburg, who are the same editor, has decided to disclose his COI at meta:User:Atomiccocktail, or rather at de:Benutzer:Einfach_machen_Hamburg but doesn't link to that account from the ones he uses to edit on enwiki. He does mention it in the edit summaries. Also note that the existance of an article on the subject in the German Wikipedia does not establish notability. German wikipedia has different policies and guidelines than enwiki. Mduvekot ( talk) 23:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
It seems as if this is just an odd campaign against paid editing. To my mind the statement on the sources distorts the reality.
This article is based mostly on information given in DVZ. The Deutsche Verkehrs-Zeitung (DVZ, formerly Deutsche Logistik-Zeitung) is a specialized journal of the transport and logistics branch since 1947. If information of company’s website is used, it is to service the reader: “Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used to verify some of the article's content.”, see WP:CORP.
Turnover, branches and recognition in their business field indicate the relevance of this company in its market. Not only FedEx or Kuehne + Nagel are players there. Atomiccocktail ( talk) 08:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric On leave 05:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per Mduvekot above, references fail the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing ++ 15:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Undeclared paid editing according the the enWP rules--the editing must be disclosed on the enWP for enWP articles, and at least at the enWP, running a company doing paid editing makes it necessary to declare oneself a paid editor for every article the company produces. Given that the references are inadequate, there is no basis for keeping the article. It's not the least odd for us to have a campaign against paid editing without explicit declaration, but our interpretation of COI policy. DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
There is no paid editing, which is not declared. The opposite is true. Every edit that has been paid is named as such. If edits were not paid, of course it was not said that this post was a paid edit. I would liked to know exactly which paid edit I had concealed. Atomiccocktail ( talk) 19:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A Train talk 07:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Cassie Jaye

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

Sources do not indicate this person meets WP:NBIO. Sources overwhelmingly focus on The Red Pill with relatively little coverage of Jaye herself, and no separate claims to notability.

This was a redirect to The Red Pill, but has been repeatedly restored without clear explanation. Grayfell ( talk) 23:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 17:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 17:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 17:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Articles about her and her work in NYT, Guardian, Evening Standard are referenced here and it's easy to find many more in e.g. Sydney Herald, The Australian, The New Daily, etc. What kind of reasoning is a separate article is not yet needed? A person is notable if they've done notable work and that notability is obvious from the many articles in mainstream sources that discuss her and her work. Agricola44 ( talk) 03:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect I don't see any individual notability for the director, only for their film. We don't have any policy that mandates articles for everyone who worked on something noteworthy (very few articles for people who work as best boys.) PeterTheFourth ( talk) 06:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The analogy you're making is, for example, that a lab technician is not notable because of important discoveries and I agree. That is because that lab technician is not the "responsible party". But, the lab head/principal investigator is notable for these important discoveries. That is the crux of PROF #1. For this case, the relevant criterion is ARTIST #3: The person has...played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.... Now, unless you're claiming that (1) Jaye did not play a major role in producing The Red Pill and (2) The Red Pill is itself not significant, you have not really made a convincing case for a redirect. You already concede (2) in saying that the film is actually notable. So, do you stick by (1), i.e. that she did not play an important role in producing this film? K.e.coffman's reasoning seems to be the same as yours... Agricola44 ( talk) 13:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
You seem to be referring to some guideline or policy when you say 'PROF #1' and 'ARTIST #3'. Could you link those please? PeterTheFourth ( talk) 19:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Yes, they are official guidelines for assessing notability. Here is WP:PROF, though I only mentioned this as an example. The relevant one here is WP:DIRECTOR...Jaye quite obviously meets criterion #3, since there are many mainstream sources (named above) that specifically discuss her and her film. Best, Agricola44 ( talk) 22:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
For Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria: If Jaye is a researcher who's work has influenced a discipline, what discipline? How, according to academic sources, has her research made a difference? This would still need reliable sources about that work, but we only have sources about the single movie she's made, and none of those sources discuss any sort of significant lasting impact on an academic field, nor is this likely for a relatively recently released film.
For Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals, that's more plausible, but the sources for The Red Pill do not suggest any sort of lasting legacy for the film either. There are no movies about the movie, nor any books or TV series. Is The Red Pill "significant"? Right now the film's article does a poor job of explaining that. It's mostly routine tabloid reviews, outrage culture op-eds, and news articles about the funding history and difficulty with screenings. The periodical reviews included are short and routine. There is very little indication of enduring coverage now that the film is out of theaters.
There has to be something more substantial than this. The important encyclopedic information about her can be placed on the film's article. The project isn't improved by poorly-sourced stubs for every single directer of every film. Grayfell ( talk) 22:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Well, like I said, PROF was only mentioned as an example. DIRECTOR is the relevant guideline: her work is "important" in the sense that there is lots of coverage in mainstream sources (NYT, Sydney Herald, et al.), which satisfies criterion 3. There's no need for "movies about the movie" or any of the other imaginary hurdles you mentioned. The article may be poorly written, but that is not what is being adjudicated here. We are only assessing notability and the many sources demonstrate she passes. Thx, Agricola44 ( talk) 22:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Per WP:DIRECTOR: ...In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. There's nothing imaginary about this, and if you're going to cite a guideline, you should cite the entire guideline. Grayfell ( talk) 23:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Another case where we're going to get down into the semantic mud, I suppose. This work has been the subject of many independent pieces in first-tier, mainstream sources, like NYT, Sydney Herald, etc...I count close to a dozen. So, I guess you're arguing that because the coverage isn't a movie about this movie, or a book about this movie, or a TV series about this movie, that her work is not notable, and by extension she is not notable. So, lots of coverage in NYT et al., but somehow that doesn't count. Do I have it? Agricola44 ( talk) 04:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
"Somehow"? Obviously you don't have it. "Independent and notable work" is somewhat subjective, but none of these works about the Red Pill are notable. Category:Documentary films about films and Category:Books about films are notable works about films that presumably meet this threhsold. I don't think a bog-standard collection of movie reviews is enough, otherwise what is the point? I suppose there's room for disagreement regarding where this line lies, but as I said, I don't see how this article helps the project when the reliable sources of substance about Jaye are about The Red Pill doc, and all information can easily be placed there.
As for the first NYT article, it's a single paragraph, internet-only blurb paraphrasing the Guardian article already cited. The prestige of the outlet should not be overstated in this case, and its use in the lede looks like WP:BOMBARDMENT. The second NYT one is more significant, but it's five paragraphs which says nothing about Jaye other than using her name as a shorthand way to critique the film.
As an aside, if the article survives, that film (The Right to Love: An American Family) should be added to the article. Grayfell ( talk) 20:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
My points are (1) that an artist is notable if her work is notable and (2) there are tons of top-tier sources that demonstrate such. We evidently disagree on point (1). Closing admin will adjudicate. Thanks, Agricola44 ( talk) 06:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
In response to those who feel this meets WP:DIRECTOR, condition #3 specifically says that the director's film output must be significant. There are only 6 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes for The Red Pill. [ [41]] This along with the sourcing shows the film exists, and has attracted attention for being controversial, but is really not significant. It might not even pass a deletion review of its own. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric On leave 05:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Although most of the coverage is about one of her films, that isn't the only thing she has gotten in the media for. See this, for example: [42]. And besides, considering the significant coverage that she has garnered, she seems to be notable anyways, as we have a large amount of coverage in reliable sources. Thus, the article should be kept and not deleted or redirected. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 12:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Jaye is arguably one of the most notable figures in the manosphere. Numerous protologisms and neoligisms can be traced to her if following the etymology. Furthermore, a redirect is not logical since the subject of the redirect was llargely about herself, making it somewhat of an autobiography, hence nodding towards notability. In a nutshell, Jaye is notable outside her profession. 92.13.131.144 ( talk) 18:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Everyone who is talking about WP:ACTOR, WP:DIRECTOR, etc are missing the point here. The criteria for biographical articles comes down to the same criteria as all other articles, from WP:BASIC: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. As part of the AfD discussion template, there are links to sources like Google News and Google Scholar and Google Books. Taking a look at this results News - 1550, Books: 600+ (although I'm sure many of these are false positives you can see pretty clearly from the previews that she's discussed in multiple books, Custom Search 15,000+... It's true that this article isn't currently making adequate use of the WP:RS that covers her, and that's problem. But in terms of the WP:BASIC there's no question. - Scarpy ( talk) 20:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not notable. One film and it's a direct-sale WP:FRINGE movement film. Morty C-137 ( talk) 21:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson ( talk) 01:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Now That's What I Call Music!. The bigger question is how to deal with music compilation series in general. I would suggest taking that discussion to WT:MUSIC. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Now That's What I Call Music! 52 (UK series)

Now That's What I Call Music! 52 (UK series) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not independently notable per NALBUM. We already have a container article for this series--well, "article" is a big word, it's just a list--and there is no need for this. Drmies ( talk) 17:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Mark the train Discuss 19:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mark the train Discuss 19:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: @ Drmies: I don't disagree with your deletion nomination, but out of curiosity, why did you pick this album out of the nearly 100 albums in the series? It seems to me that they are all equally (non-)notable, and if you delete one album, you may as well delete the articles for all of them.
I can see the notability of the overall "container" article Now That's What I Call Music!, because right from the first album they were huge sellers and had two effects on the UK charts: firstly, they showed the major record labels that they could put out their own "chart hits" albums and not license their tracks to the likes of K-Tel or Arcade; and secondly, their success was held responsible for the creation of the separate compilations chart in 1989. The first few albums in the series had some sort of novelty about them, and I would certainly be able to find actual album reviews for them – I remember reviews appearing in the UK music press at the time. But the series has long since descended into a three-times-a-year, regular-as-clockwork output, with nothing to distinguish the albums from each other. The usual single claim of notability is that they make number one on the UK compilations chart, but this really doesn't amount to anything, because the growth of DIY playlists from MP3s and Spotify in the last ten years has killed the compilations market, and the three annual Now! albums now account for up to 80% of all compilations sold in the UK each year, so getting to no. 1 when you have no competition is no great feat.
To be honest, in my view almost no individual compilation album is notable in its own right, and few compilation "series" are either – the Now!'s may be one of the few exceptions. Richard3120 ( talk) 23:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
    • I picked one at random. Actually, I picked two, but the first one I picked had charted. No, I am not going to nominate every single compilation album. BTW it's not just about sales, of course, and getting to no. 1 is really no better than getting to no. 2; reviews are much more valuable for purposes of the GNG. Drmies ( talk) 23:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Actually, this one charted as well, reaching no. 1 – unfortunately you can't check it on the OCC's website because they seem to have an error and don't display any charts between April 2002 and January 2004. But it was the third biggest-selling compilation of the year (behind Now! 53 and Now! 51, of course). All 97 Now! compilations to date have either reached no. 1 or, in very few cases, no. 2 on the compilation chart. So really, I do believe that either they are all notable, or none of them are notable. As almost none of the albums after the first half dozen have any reviews at all, I would lean towards the latter view. By the way, the editor most keen on making articles for all these compilations is Hadji87, if you want to notify him of this AfD. Richard3120 ( talk) 23:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
So the question for other editors viewing this AfD comes down to this: is making no. 1 on two national compilation charts notable enough to keep the article? This album is no more and no less notable than any other album in the series: either they should all be kept, or they should all go. Richard3120 ( talk) 13:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I agree that all could/should be redirected (which I had done for nearly all other countries' Now releases that had articles years ago). Individually, they offer nothing but the track listings for each release. Popularity doesn't mean notable if they don't receive any coverage beyond first-week charting/sales totals. If someone wanted to expand the discography page, chart positions and/or certifications received can be added there. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 18:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I've seen these before, and declined to nominate for AfD due to their chart success. I think the best solution is for all the individual albums to be merged to new per-country overview pages. I have no interest in doing any of this work, if nobody else is willing to volunteer this should be kept by default. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 15:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c ) ( m) 05:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 07:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect all to Now That's What I Call Music!, the container article, per the evidence and explanation given by Richard3120 above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Now That's What I Call Music!. An article like this one reveals the gap between the GNG and specialty sub-guidelines like WP:NALBUM. The reason that NALBUM asks that we preserve albums with high chart positions is because the guideline assumes that a high chart position will be correlated with lots of interesting things being written about that album. This is true 99% of the time, and then this is the 1% where it isn't. By the letter of the guideline, we need to keep this article, but the spirit of the guideline is to protect articles about which we could write encyclopedic articles. There is no potentially interesting prose to be written about this album, as far as anyone knows. If there had been a famous legal case involving Now! struggling to secure the rights to a particular song, or if the album had to be recalled because all of the songs had been overdubbed with satanic rituals, then we'd have an article. But just another hits compilation? A Train talk 07:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply
@ A Train: "satanic rituals"... some of these albums contain Justin Bieber songs, is that what you meant? Richard3120 ( talk) 09:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Bingo. A Train talk 09:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) J 947( c ) ( m) 18:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Evelyn Young

Evelyn Young (  | 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: as thoroughly non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 02:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c ) ( m) 05:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Mentions are not passing but lengthy and detailed. Both the movies The Wildcat of Tucson and Prairie Schooners are notable. There are many more references to the actress from the 1940s. gidonb ( talk) 05:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Leading roles in at least two films: The Wildcat of Tucson and Prairie Schooners. Good sourcing: American Film Institute and several Google books. desmay ( talk) 16:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This AfD is open already a while but all this while no case has been made for deletion. As is clear from the improved article, the actress meets both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. If one were to claim that the films in which Young has lead roles are non-notable, these could be listed for deletion, however these films meet WP:NFILM. My claim is not that other stuff exists. I reject such arguments. Rather I'm pointing out that there are obvious dependencies here. It's like the category that is listed for rename but the name change should be discussed at the critical article for that category. Same with a lead actress of multiple feature films at the " Big Six". Only if the movies are nevertheless proven non-notable it would even be conceivable that their lead actors are non-notable. And even then Young meets the WP:GNG. But without addressing the films no case for deletion would be possible. Sure, it is said in the intro that the actress is not notable by the relevant professional guideline. It is the how not notable by that guideline that defies logic without procedurally addressing the films. After all, WP:NACTOR is crystal clear: actors are notable (amongst others) if they have "had significant roles in multiple notable films". gidonb ( talk) 00:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
To be totally clear I'm adding only as a side note (!) that Young had significant roles also in the notable films Boobs in Arms and Girls of the Road. One of these is mentioned above. I'm concentrating however on her roles in The Wildcat of Tucson and Prairie Schooners because the female lead is so obviously a significant role. I'm trying to keep my argument simple. gidonb ( talk) 01:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train talk 07:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Dionne Rakeem

Dionne Rakeem (  | 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. The claim of her song "Sweeter than Wine" charting at 46th in the United Kingdom may be false as The Official Charts Company does not show anything about Rakeem or her song (not even in archives) ( source in article shows no entry). Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. No secondary sources can be found. The subject-specific guideline (WP:MUSICBIO) exists as secondary to WP:GNG and "meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." — Za wl 15:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep per WP:MUSICBIO#C2. Proof is available here.-- Laun chba ller 15:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is anyone going to address the MUSICBIO findings?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c ) ( m) 05:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A Train talk 07:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

WEBT (disambiguation)

WEBT (disambiguation) (  | 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 an ordinary, orphan, WP:2DABS page where disambiguation is not required. The primary topic has a hatnote to the only other use. De-PRODed by Patar knight who added a wiktionary reference to a non-English word. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 07:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:2DABS. This is to disambiguate Wikipedia articles, and is not a dictionary, I don't think the link to Wiktionary justifies a dab. Boleyn ( talk) 09:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Mark the train Discuss 09:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Mark the train Discuss 09:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Mark the train Discuss 09:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c ) ( m) 05:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. A Train talk 07:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Dheeraj Singh Moirangthem

Dheeraj Singh Moirangthem (  | 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 am sorry for doing this but these articles don't pass WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, and although the fact that India hosting the u-17 world cup is a great thing it does not make the individual players notable unless they pass the notability guidelines. Did not find the rational of why the PROD was removed convincing at all. Inter&anthro ( talk) 04:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Amarjit Singh Kiyam (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rahul Kannoly Praveen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Inter&anthro ( talk) 04:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Inter&anthro ( talk) 04:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ सुमित सिंह and सुमित सिंह: to answer your question youth team appearances are not considered notable because many players who play for their youth team do not go on to become professional. How many of the Indian u-17 team can you name from 10 years ago? @ Akhiljaxxn: there is no double standard, please read WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. I agree with both of you that there are problems in Wikipedia's notability guidelines and inherent biases, but these should be discussed in a constructive manner on places such as the WikiProject's talk page.
Trust me there is nothing I hate more than nominating articles for deletion, and it has happened to me too that article(s) which I put a lot of effort and time were deleted. If it were up to me I would never nominate articles for deletion. Unfortunately Wikipedia has policies and guidelines and we as editors have to follow them. There is still a lot of work to do on Indian football see here so please do not take this AFD personally and instead try to see it as a learning curve because we would all like you guys to stay and keep editing. If these articles happen to be deleted please remember all is not lost and you can always recreate them when they meet said guidelines. Inter&anthro ( talk) 18:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 13:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Camping (computing)

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

Unsourced. Possible hoax. Searches turned up absolutely nothing relevant. You'd think in a specialized field like this it would be widely covered but nothing relevant came up in either Google Books or Scholar, almost all of the results on a standard Google search (for terms such as "server camping") are about Camping (computer gaming) or some other topic. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 04:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 04:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that this topic fails the notability guideline. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 13:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Iqbal Unnisa

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

Clearly fails WP:BIO. NikolaiHo ☎️ 04:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, sadly. Our only source is a self-published book and web, scholar, and book searches found little else. Searching for her at unom.ac.in reveals that she only directed the institute for six months, and anyway WP:PROF#C6 is only for heads of whole universities — head of department is far too low an administrative position to be automatically notable. Single-digit citations for her work in Google scholar are too low for WP:PROF#C1 even in a low citation field. Her association with notorious self-promoter Florentin Smarandache doesn't help. I'm all for promoting the accomplishments of underrepresented groups in mathematics (in this case both women and people from less-developed nations, although calling India "less developed" in mathematics seems a little odd) but we should do so by writing about people with significant accomplishments who might otherwise have been overlooked, not by being indiscriminate about who we include. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per David Eppstein Fails WP:GNG and her h-index is clearly low for WP:PROF particularly WP:PROF#C1 and also fails WP:PROF#C6 as she headed only a department and only for 6 months and not the whole university and could not find adequate coverage to meet general notability guideline either. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 05:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I can find papers with 6 and 2 GS citations. Not enough for WP:Prof, even in the low cited field field of pure mathematics. It would be helpful if people who wrote such articles would create a GS profile for the subject. This would make it easier for examination at AfD. Xxanthippe ( talk) 06:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC). reply
Maybe I was thinking of ResearcherID. I have not tried with GS. Xxanthippe ( talk) 09:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC). reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 05:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Michael Opondo

Michael Opondo (  | 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. The organization he founded may be notable by itself, but notability is not inherited. REferences are all either self published or primary, or passing mentions. GigglesnortHotel ( talk) 17:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark ( talk) 03:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - passes WP:GNG. Good sources. BabbaQ ( talk) 14:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - most of the information inside the article cannot be corroborated by the sources provided. Some references are just landing pages of websites which is WP:SPAM. From my personal search I could not find any reliable references about the subject but those about the organization he founded. An article about the organization can be spun off this subject. Kagundu Talk To Me 15:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I took a look to many refs, but coudln't find in the sources evidence for his notability; some statements of his as a student, an article he co-authored, and refs to his personal website, and the website of the organization he has founded. —— Chalk19 ( talk) 07:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) J 947( c ) ( m) 05:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Georgia Glastris

Georgia Glastris (  | 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:Notability. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 03:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) NikolaiHo ☎️ 03:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

James Heilman

AfDs for this article:
James Heilman (  | 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 only content of this article is centred around James' Wikipedia involvement. Other than that, he is just another ER doctor. If it wasn't for his Wikipedia editing, there would be almost no content. If Wikipedia editing is reason for an article, why doesn't User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao have an article? For this reason, this article doesn't meet WP:BIO, and as previously mentioned, there is an issue of WP:BLP1E. There is a serious problem when over half an article is dedicated to his Wikipedia editing. NikolaiHo ☎️ 03:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • User:Nikolaiho, I think you misunderstand something pretty basic here: whatever someone's notability is based on (Wikipedia, gay porn, YouTubing, writing books on medieval studies) is irrelevant--what matters is what secondary sources have to say on it. I don't think old Ser Amantio has generated much coverage... Drmies ( talk) 03:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Ser Amantio may have even more coverage than Mr. Heilman. Try a Google query. NikolaiHo ☎️ 03:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Drmies: - you're right, I haven't. Three or four things, I think, nothing more. (Just ran a Google search on myself - ashamed as I am to admit that publicly - and I find that many of the "Steven Pruitt"s on the first page are not me.) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 03:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Ser Amantio di Nicolao, you are on Time magazines most influential people on the Internet, absolutely a living legend. Don't undercredit yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikolaiho ( talk • contribs) 03:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Am still searching for the gay porn, alas. Martinevans123 ( talk) 13:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Ser Amantio di Nicolao, I am sorry: I didn't know you were such a player! Wow! Drmies ( talk) 14:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Martinevans123: and @ Drmies: A hint: try the keywords "goat", "paintbrush", "Sebastopol", "Georges Braque roleplay", and "1923 Cadillac". That should get you somewhere interesting. Where, I don't know. Probably on an FBI watchlist somewhere. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 14:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Also, I think I should note that there is now an article about Ser Amantio di Nicolao (real name Steven Pruitt) which I created yesterday. Everymorning (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Flattered, I'm sure, but I'm not sure I'm well-enough sourced to withstand scrutiny. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 14:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Hook me up with citizenship and I won't PROD you. Drmies ( talk) 20:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that this player does not meet the relevant notability guidelines, cited in the nomination statement. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 13:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Craig Bearss

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

Unsourced BLP. External links are both broken and provide no information. Does not appear to meet WP:GRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH standards for inclusion. Ham tech person 02:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 07:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Fair Oaks Avenue (Pasadena, California)

Fair Oaks Avenue (Pasadena, California) (  | 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 notability asserted, tagged for sources since 2007. Deprodded after 7 day expiry. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to Popsicle stick as it would be a double redirect. If an article ever emerges at Popsicle stick then no prejudice against reviving this article as a redirect then. A Train talk 07:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Paddlepop stick

Paddlepop stick (  | 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 lacks notability. Meatsgains ( talk) 01:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 07:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The nominator is a newbie? 96.127.242.251 ( talk) 01:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Greenbörg, it would have been helpful if you had included a note in the edit summary or here on the AfD explaining why you struck out Mfarazbaig's comment. A Train talk 07:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

A Train It was my mistake so sorry for that. I struck out because he got blocked for sock puppetry. Greenbörg (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Reactions to the 2016 Lahore suicide bombing

AfDs for this article:
Reactions to the 2016 Lahore suicide bombing (  | 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 am revisiting this quote farm in light of a recent discussion on another "Reactions to..." article. The consensus was to delete -- "clearly" as the closer described it. I realize using other stuff is mostly frowned upon (and rightly so) but this negates editor opinion that there is "precedent" to keep these quote farms. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and loosely synthing routine reactions that weren't important enough for the actual article doesn't change that. I do not advocate for a merge because the article on the attack summarizes the world's condolences in an orderly manner. Really, there is no policy based reason to keep this: notability isn't inherited to the attack and individual reactions must be judged individually so WP:GNG does not apply either. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 00:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as not much to write about with limited sources. This is clearly a WP:QUOTEFARM and as per precedent set by recent discussion this is not much valuable on WP now. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Merge (selectively, the more notable ones) into 2016 Lahore suicide bombing. These "reactions" articles serve a purpose in "current event mode" (this directs the "reaction" news flow off of the main article) or in the case of truly mega events (which can have very large articles, in which case sub-articles make sense). In this case, the main article isn't very long (18K bytes) - and there is no need for a separate "reactions" article. Icewhiz ( talk) 14:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Looks like the most significant reactions are in the main article in any event - so I'm striking the merge vote, though it might be possible to selectively merge a few additional bits. Icewhiz ( talk) 14:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

*Keep & WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE - The previous AfD was closed just a month ago. What happened at AfD for other article has no business here. This easily passes WP:GNG. See: CBC News, Ottawa Citizen, CBC News, Catholic Herald, Daily Bruin, DAWN, Metro News, PCP. - Mfarazbaig ( talk) 16:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Mfarazbaig how do seperate reactions pass GNG; they must all be judge, well, separately. Anyways, my rationale quite thoroughly explains why these quote farms are not for the encyclopedia. I realize you are part of the Pakistan WikiProject but you must handle this case objectively. And please understand no rational admin will close this prematurely simply because you don't like the nomination. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 16:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply
====Advice on renominating====

When you do renominate, try to make a better nomination statement than was made last time. Address directly the issues that caused the participants to not be persuaded last time. Emphasize the issues that were not sufficiently considered last time.

Be warned that some consider renominations to be disruptive, or gaming. Don’t exacerbate this problem by badgering the participants in the new discussion.

Posted by Unscintillating ( talk) 00:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Unscintillating be warned, casting aspersions is just as disruptive as any illusionary scenario where I am supposedly trying to game any system. "Precedence" was the main point, as non-policy based as it is, by keep voters in the previous discussion. If you read my re-nomination statement, I address this and more -- quite thoroughly. This "advice" was not even marginally relevant to me, and I'm sorry but your comments at AFD have been head-scatchers as of late. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 00:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Bactiguard Wire Brass

Bactiguard Wire Brass (  | 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 and WP:BAND, created by what appears to be a WP:SPA. Searches turned up absolutely nothing. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 00:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 00:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 00:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that this player does not meet the football notability guideline – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 13:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Andy Reyes

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator based on an unsourced claim that the Costa Rican top flight is fully pro. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 00:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 00:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 07:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 07:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment WP:FPL neither lists the Costa Rican league as an FPL, nor as a non-FPL, meaning nobody could find a reliable source either way. If someone could find one either confirming or denying its professional status, that would be helpful not just for this AfD but going forward. I don't really have the time right now, but might later in the week. This is why AfD's run seven days. Smartyllama ( talk) 13:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - BLP about footballer who recently signed with Pachuca's youth side, who has played in a youth World Cup and one-and-one-half season in the Costa Rican top division. I can only find routine coverage (match reports and transfer news) with very limited exceptions. I don't know if the Costa Rican top division is fully-pro (which appears unlikely when you look at pictures of the "crowd" in league matches like this), but I don't see enough coverage of typical players (i.e., not "stars") participating in the league to justify an assumption of notability. Jogurney ( talk) 15:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 08:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that this player does not meet the football notability guideline. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 13:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Diego Nájera

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator based on a claim that the Andorran top flight is fully pro. This claim is unsupported and contradicted by sources at WP:FPL. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 00:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 00:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 08:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 08:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 08:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
I asked for a hand. A Train talk 20:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_October_10&oldid=1142617657"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 9 October 11 October >

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 redirect to Copyright. Seems like there is equal support for deletion or redirection, if fine tuning is needed it can happen at WP:RFD which is custom made for "redirect vs. nothing" decisions. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 18:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Copyright protection

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

Effectively a WP:TWODABS page with a clear primary topic by historical importance, copyright. Reference to technology used to protect copyrights can be addressed in a hatnote. bd2412 T 00:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete without redirect. WP:RFD might have been a better venue, but never mind.
I would not be shocked by a redirect to copyright, either, but if we do that, then we need a hatnote at the copyright article, which ( ceteris paribus) will slightly blot the page. I think it is one of the cases where deleting completely will save a bit on the hatnote, and not lose much (since a search result will easily point the reader to adequate articles). Tigraan Click here to contact me 10:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

The Island That All Flow By

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

Searches turned up very little, and certainly not enough to pass WP:GNG. Was deprodded without rationale or improvement. Uncited film (other than imdb). It lists a set of awards, but what awards is anyone's guess. Onel5969 TT me 23:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Keep has won six notable awards and was broadcast on a major network , references have been added that confirm the awards so it seems more notable than a run of the mill television film. Atlantic306 ( talk) 00:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ( non-admin closure) The1337gamer ( talk) 16:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Frog X Bird

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination). When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was Speedy delete. ( non-admin closure) The1337gamer ( talk) 16:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Frog X Bird (  | 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. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Reliable video game source web search returned 0 useful results. Also a WP:PROMO and WP:COI piece. The1337gamer ( talk) 22:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer ( talk) 22:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Also because many people say there is nothing mergeable, if people wonder why I didn't go for a redirect or a merger. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 18:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Best pony

Best pony (  | 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:GNG. Information and sources cane easily be wp:merged into My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic or similar pages. Comatmebro ( talk) 21:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 01:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Mike Beaver

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP, with some advertorial overtones (we don't care whether a journalist ever called anybody the next somebody else), of an actor whose main notability claim is that he's "probably" best known as a costumed and masked antagonist on a children's game show. This is not a major role for the purposes of passing WP:NACTOR, in the absence of reliable source coverage about his performance in that role — but none has been provided here at all. And on a ProQuest search, I get a smattering of glancing namechecks of the actor's existence amid search results that are primarily about an unrelated First Nations chief from northern Alberta — even the article with the "next John Candy" quote in it isn't a particularly strong source for much of anything else — so there's just not enough substantive reliable source coverage about him to salvage this with. Bearcat ( talk) 21:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 01:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 01:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 01:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I redid Bearcat's research, using slightly different sources, yet drew the very same conclusions: [1] Notability cannot be established with current references. [2] Notability could not be established with other online sources. If someone has new insights, I'm willing to reconsider. gidonb ( talk) 02:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Completely unsourced WP:BLP. Unable to confirm that the Toronto Star called him the next John Candy. Lack of substantive articles from reliable sources. desmay ( talk) 14:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
To be fair, I did find the "John Candy" hit on a ProQuest search; it was in 1997, so it wouldn't turn up in an open Google search. But the article didn't say much else of any substance about Beaver besides the prediction. Bearcat ( talk) 17:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. OK, first off it seems like the nominator and one delete !voter are sockpuppets and that would normally get the AfD thrown out, but there are legitimate users making arguments in favour of deletion. The crux of the argument is whether GNG is met (and whether BLPREQUESTDELETE applies, seeing as the article topic is a Wikipedia editor and they have opined in favour of deletion). Numerically it's fairly evenly split after throwing out the socks but the "delete" case is going in more depth about whether the sources are (in)substantial enough. That plus BLPREQUESTDELETE tips it over into "deletion". It's OK for Wikipedians to have articles so as long as normal biography inclusion criteria are met (i.e I am not familiar with any Wikipedian-specific policy different from normal biography policies), generally. Finally I see some users arguing whether to have a general "List of Wikipedians" article. It didn't get much discussion and I point people to WP:REFUND if they need the content of this article for such a project. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 18:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Steven Pruitt

Steven Pruitt (  | 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, permission not given for creation by Ser Amantio di Nicolao. Mrme i 22:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
NikolaiHo ☎️ 02:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, that is very much canvassing. For one thing, it is far from neutrally worded, and for another it is off-wiki, and would apparently not have been visible here without Everymorning's intervention. So it fits two of the four characteristics of inappropriate canvassing on WP:CANVASS, non-neutrality and stealth. I don't want to violate WP:OUTING by asking whether that was you, but whoever did that could face sanctions here for their misbehavior. This AfD is already somewhat questionable because the nominator turned out to be a sockpuppeteer; it doesn't need help making it more so. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • No, I have absolutely nothing to do with that reddit, I learned about it from that tag. The author of it wasn't telling people to come here and vote, he/she was just expressing his opinion, so what's the matter? NikolaiHo ☎️ 00:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Ok, glad to hear it wasn't you. But my feeling is that if someone just wants to blow off about an AfD they disagree with, the better approach is to wait until it is closed so that it doesn't look like canvassing. That also has the advantage that there's less chance of looking stupid when the AfD changes direction and ends up aligned with their opinion. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Sure it might be for their benefit not to have posted that but is it actually canvassing. In other words, should the canvassing notice on this AfD exist? That is my concern. NikolaiHo ☎️ 03:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • The first commenter there clearly believes its intent was to canvass. Regardless, what's the harm of the notice? It's just a helpful reminder to any newcomers who might wander by (canvassed or not) and to the closing admin. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, though I'm flattered to have been considered. Various issues, none of them having anything to do with BLP issues (believe me, I'm fine with anything in the article appearing publicly. I'm an open book, generally speaking.) But I've never been convinced that there are enough sources to currently justify writing me up. There aren't but four, after all...and there are aspects of my life missing from them all (birth date, birthplace, etc.) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 06:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Suggest we have a List of Wikipedia people and Steve has a section. The recognition by Time is great but do we really have enough material for a biography? I wouldn't want one if ever I got coverage for most articles created personally. I think we should wait until there is more coverage like Rosie has had for his own article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • KeepIm agree with @David Eppstein Amirdaeii ( talk) 07:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep other editors have attracted media attention for GNG over much weirder aspects of their editing history, David Eppstein and Andy Mabbett have the answer it meets the requirement JarrahTree 10:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No clear reason for the article's existence, and sure, Jimbo deserves an article, but as per SADN, not WP:Notable. Sure, he has 2 million plus edits, I have 2 million plus bacteria on my toilet seat. I consider notability to be something you can put on a resume and have the interviewer want to hire you immediately, or not hire you at all. Sure having two million edits to Wikipedia is impressive, but you put that on your resume and the guy will probably just go "cool" and pass right over it. Met meg an slay 00:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets GNG. Bobherry Talk Edits 14:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; it's all news reports, which are almost always primary sources, and these cases are human interest stories, which to quote WP:NEWSORG, are "generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy". In fact, one can question the idea that these are human interest stories — they all tend toward being opinion pieces of who's-who, and opinion pieces definitely aren't reliable for anything other than "Editor Alice thinks X". Nyttend ( talk) 04:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I like Dr. Blofeld's idea of a list of the Wikipedians who have had some off-WMF news coverage, but perhaps do not want an article (as here) or do not have adequate coverage to quite meet GNG (or be comfortable) for a full article. So, I can't decide if my !vote is weak delete or merge with list yet to be created, but this is my two cents. Montanabw (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Here's my take on the situation. Ser Amantio himself is arguing that he doesn't pass notability guidelines and I have to agree with him. The coverage I can find for him seems to center on the coverage in TIME, which is frankly very recent and doesn't show a true depth of coverage. Now while some of the notability guidelines do state that two sources show notability, that guideline is meant to cover cases where those two sources assert that the topic or person has done something that would be considered so major and significant that the article can be kept on that claim alone. Very, very few things rise to that level of notability, which is reserved for things like winning an Oscar or assuming a major political office (like President of the USA). In other words, those two sources would contain information about something that is so incredibly notable that it's obvious that more secondary, reliable sourcing is available somewhere, even if it's not immediately accessible.
I'm not trying to downplay Ser Amantio's contributions here or his impact on us and others, but right here and now he has not accomplished that level of notability, as the TIME designation would not be considered to be at that level. It's the type of thing that makes it incredibly more likely that more coverage will become available, but he hasn't received that level of notability right here and now. Now if we had a list akin to what Dr. Blofeld has suggested, then I'd whole heartedly suggest listing Ser Amantio's article there, but we don't have a list like that and I would recommend that anyone debating on starting such a list wait and start a discussion first because there is a lot of consideration that needs to be done for that list. (IE, notability threshold, coverage, etc.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Good point. When a Wikipedia editor says "Delete my article; I'm not notable", we really ought to do it — who's better familiar with the sources? This isn't someone saying "I don't want a Wikipedia article!" but someone saying "I'm familiar with WP:BIO, and I don't pass it". Nyttend ( talk) 11:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I think the notability here is borderline (one event really) (and uh, no offense Ser Amantio) and if it's borderline it should default to the subject's own preference. So if Ser Amantio says delete here, so do I (if it wasn't borderline, it'd be different). Also, I've seen this kind of thing go bad before.  Volunteer Marek  19:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Substantial coverage in Time and Vocativ, therefore meets GNG. Jakob ( talk) 22:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete - Basically of the same opinion as Volunteer Marek. Whether the paragraph in Time, a paragraph in Inc, and some decent coverage in El Diario and Vocativ amounts to not just notability but a stand-alone article isn't clear, and since the subject would prefer deletion, I hop off the fence to the delete side on this one. Not opposed to Blofeld's idea of creating a larger list and merging, fwiw. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article goes totally into the realm of navel gazing. Having articles on people who have made huge numbers of edits on Wikipedia without longstanding and good quality sources about them, just undermines the quality of Wikipedia itself. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. In the real world, this subject's notability is minor, not "substantial". – Athaenara ✉ 08:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The subject is a superb Wikipedian and it is appropriate that our most prolific editor has been recognized in human-interest stories in the media. However, notability cannot rest on one assertion (prolific editor) repeated by a number of outlets, particularly given WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and the fact that the subject has above requested deletion. The confusion regarding James Heilman is regrettable—this is not the place to expand on that, but even quickly scanning Heilman's article shows it has 59 references covering half a dozen different aspects of his work. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America 1000 01:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Charles Guyette

Charles Guyette (  | 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, based mostly on blogs Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 20:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 01:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 01:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 01:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep this photographer is clearly notable per non-passing coverage in significant books. The bad news is summarized in the intro and actually goes beyond: the article is a product of a blog that culminated in a self-published book (or the other way around) and in all fairness could be viewed as promotion for these. The article should be cleaned up from most references and a new set of references should be added (since current valid references underwrite facts, NOT notability). IF the conclusion of this AfD is the same as my conclusion (and that remains be seen!), I am willing to cleanup and reference. Just leave a note on my talk page if help is needed. gidonb ( talk) 02:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note I have updated the endnotes of this page to include more books. 12 October 2017 ... kindly look it over. Thanks.

Don't know how to update the wiki page with the image. Hoping someone will kindly lend support and assistance. A million thanks. 10/12/2017

Hi Arthistorian1977, are the improvements in referencing sufficient in your opinion for withdrawing the nomination? gidonb ( talk) 19:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
After looking second time, I do withdraw my nomination. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 05:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Thank you, Arthistorian1977! gidonb ( talk) 02:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Anon, we can't help you because the copyrights are unclear. Also please refrain from making hostile statements yourself. gidonb ( talk) 02:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. And salt; recreation ought to be discussed in WP:DELREV. It seems like while the keep camp is far more verbose, the arguments by the delete camp do address the keep arguments and have convinced more people. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 18:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Kedar_Joshi

AfDs for this article:
Kedar_Joshi (  | 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 the third incarnation of this page, with no increase in notability, and obvious signs of self-aggrandizement and disruptive editing of other pages. LordQwert ( talk) 19:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Additionally, the deletion should extend to the stub pages in the Interlingua, and Interlingue languages. (Those are different things?) I'm not a speaker of those languages, so I'm not comfortable instigating those deletions. LordQwert ( talk) 22:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Please note that the page Kali has been heavily edited by Hinduresci, including significant content related to Kedar Joshi's personal beliefs. I have reverted those edits and addressed the topic on the talk page. It is likely to me that several other articles related to Hinduism may have been edited by Hinduresci to align with his personal perspective. LordQwert ( talk) 17:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Other pages which may false under the auspices of a general review/deletion: Kshipra_Joshi, Bhanumati_(Mahabharata), Durukti, The_Mahābhārata_(Smith_book), and W._Douglas_P._Hill. Note that Durukti is, I believe, the entity Kedar Joshi claims to be, and that Hinduresci has added many links to the page, and references to the entity, from other Hinduism related Wikipedia pages, not listed here.
The article as it stands clearly appears to denote that the subject is notable. Hinduresci ( talk) 19:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

@nom, In view of the message you left on Spinningspark's talk page, if I had been Joshi himself as you seem to suggest, do you really think I would ever at all introduce the article on Kali (demon) in such scathing (though advertently factual) manner, e.g. fetid man who holds his penis in the left hand? I wonder whether it is possible for any sensible and equitable man to imagine the answer to that question in the affirmative! Hinduresci ( talk) 20:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I never intended to promote the subject. And I do not understand how it fails to establish notability. The 3 to 4 foreign language sources are not presumably unreliable. They are objectively deemed important, and so must be the topic covered by them substantially. Also, take, for example, a look at the manner in which the subject has been quoted by a reputed scholar at the Arizona State University! Do you not think it seems to suggest that the subject is worthy of notice? And would you, by the way, presume that the scholar intends to promote Joshi as well? Hinduresci ( talk) 01:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
I reckon there is more than sufficient objective evidence that he is a notable philosopher, though he may, of course, not be exceedingly notable. Hinduresci ( talk) 01:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Put differently, I do not understand how it is objectively deniable that the subject meets WP:BASIC and maybe WP:AUTHOR too. Hinduresci ( talk) 01:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: I'm not notable myself but can find plenty of references to my name in computer science related literature including by professors and some notable people, and I authored some published books (although I am anonymously editing here). Google results are plenty because of my participation in many opensource projects. There is no article about me on Wikipedia and doubt that I'll ever meet notability requirements for other volunteer editors to write one about me. If I wrote one, or hired someone to, it likely would not pass AfD. Wikipedia is simply not an indiscriminate collection of information or directory. Significant coverage should be available, not only mentions, quotes, press releases, non-independent sources coverage, bibliographies, etc. — Paleo Neonate – 01:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Significant coverage indeed looks available, and it is presumably independent and reliable. Also, in fact, the varied citations in scholarly articles by others who are presumably independent of him, look good enough to understand that the topic is proved to have worth of being noticed. Hinduresci ( talk) 01:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
If there is any prejudice against the foreign language sources, the prejudice is rather disruptive, not constructive. Hinduresci ( talk) 01:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: Neither online nor English language sources are necessary for establishing notability. And the sources with substantial coverage cited in the article are some of the most prominent and established ones (some even in existence since 1881) from a major language other than English, with around 73 million native speakers. Also, since he is the author of multiple notable (or important) aphorisms (which are pieces or works of literature), cited in the main prominently by presumably independent reputed scholars from academic disciplines (which even seem different from his own) including physics, cardiology, oceanography, as well as by rhetorician/s and editor/s of some of the most important newspapers such as The Times of India, he is manifestly a notable (or important or influential) author, though the degree of notability (or importance or influence) may not be exceeding and does not have to be either. Hinduresci ( talk) 07:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
@nom, If the significant content you mentioned at all appears to relate to Kedar Joshi's personal beliefs, let me apprise you that the appearance merely seems to result from a queer combination of accident, factuality, and bibliographic reference to his work, none of which, I suppose, is gratuitous. Hinduresci ( talk) 17:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Substantial (or non-trivial) coverage is given; and non-English and offline sources are acceptable. That "I couldnt find any in depth coverage" makes no sense. Hinduresci ( talk) 06:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: Not every source must be of the standard of The Washington Post, for instance, to be deemed reliable and acceptable.
Let me also cite a couple of relevant and interesting statements:
"Notability of articles is sometimes very subjective, varying with time and geography. For some people, US 1980 presidential candidate John Anderson might be a noted person; others who don't live in the United States might feel that Scottish 18th century scientist John Anderson is more prominent."
"Deletionism may favor rich countries, since it's there most people have a computer and the Internet at home. (poor countries are usually less in the medias, except wars, famines and natural disasters or sporting success) This would give a very Western World-fixed POV. Sure Wikipedia is no charity project, but it still shall cover the entire world." — Inclusionism Hinduresci ( talk) 07:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply
As far as I can see there is nothing self-promotional, and he definitely does not look insufficiently notable either. Are you just totally looking down upon the non-English sources? If you are, I have to say you are mistaken; and I believe to have already mentioned the reasons. Hinduresci ( talk) 16:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
In fact I clearly get the impression that since a number of suitable sources have so far been found, it is likely that even more sources exist as well. Also see WP:NPOSSIBLE. Hinduresci ( talk) 16:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
I could actually disclose how I ran into this topic; how I managed to procure the sources and so on. However, the only trouble is the terrible controversy that potentially surrounds my contribution to Kali (demon), which discourages me from revealing much information. 17:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
In other words, since my contributions, especially the ones to the article on Kali (demon), are, it can certainly be argued, religiously controversial to a great extent, I better be reticent for my own security. Hinduresci ( talk) 17:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: Let me substantiate it to you how this topic is notable! Let's keep aside the substantial coverage in the presumably independent and reliable non-English published sources as well as the questionably substantial astrological coverage in the couple of English sources which include The Indian Express. What seem to remain then are the dialogues published in Philosophy Pathways and several presumably independent and reliable, published English sources which appear to cite him along with his aphorisms. Now, if we keep aside the dialogues too, we would be left with the following: Kedar Joshi is the author of multiple noted aphorisms, one of which has been cited in a column as prominent as the Sacred Space of The Times of India, while another one has been cited by an American cardiologist right at the beginning of one of his research papers published in a journal as reputed as the Journal of the American College of Cardiology; yet another aphorism has been quoted by a very reputed researcher affiliated to Arizona State University on the first page of one of his published academic works, along with a picture of Kedar Joshi himself. There is one more aphorism which has been cited, along with an aphorism by Confucius, in a scholarly journal right at the beginning of the paper published in it. There is also a Spanish author who not only seems to have cited him in his reliable, published work but also appears to have mentioned him as a philosopher who is so young and yet so lucid. A journalist from southern India once asked a noted individual for his opinion on one of Joshi's works. And a book written by an independent author and published by a noted publisher cites one of his aphorisms too; and so on.
Now, according to WP:BIO, "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note" – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life." Is it not apparent from description above that there is objective evidence that Mr Joshi is indeed interesting or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded? Remember, it is not at all necessary for a biographical topic to have a full account of its life covered in independent and reliable published source/s; because, although, for example, Kshipra Joshi is clearly a noted topic which seems to meet WP:NGYMNAST as well as WP:ANYBIO, even its full date of birth could not be known from any independent and reliable published source, let alone a full biography. And let me ingeminate that although I created the articles on both of the aforementioned Joshis, I have no personal connection to any of them, and I also believe to have mentioned fairly strong logical evidence to the contrary. — Hinduresci ( talk) 23:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: See also: The rationale opposing deletion of the article on W. Douglas P. Hill & The quotations as to notability, especially the second one
Similarly, is it wonted for an average author from this planet to have their work (independently) cited in a column as discriminating as the Sacred Space of The Times of India? No, not at all! That means Joshi is notable (or unusual or rare or uncommon). Is it, at all, wonted for an average mortal to beget multiple works of noteworthiness? No, not at all! Again, that means Joshi is notable. Is it wonted for an average person to have their works independently featured in most renowned publications in virtually the most prominent fashion imaginable? Of course not! That means Joshi is notable, yet again. Is it wonted for an average human to be independently alluded to in a fairly reliable source as an intellectual with astonishing intelligibility? Obviously not! Joshi is notable on that account as well; and so forth. And do remember the incontestable please: The sole thing notability boils down to is unusualness (or rarity). — Hinduresci ( talk) 22:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
He is notable on account of the rationale given above; ends the matter. — Hinduresci ( talk) 04:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
If the concern as to fringe theorist is indeed credible, the sole trouble with the article would be the "Philosophical views" section; and not the article itself. — Hinduresci ( talk) 05:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
And as long as the fringe views are not given undue weight, the trouble should be trivial. — Hinduresci ( talk) 05:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: The topic is obviously unusual (or notable) enough to be recorded in Wikipedia, especially when Wikipedia is not made of paper. Even the aforedescribed nature of the citations of his aphorisms is indicative of striking unusualness (or clear notability); and that truth is, in fact, also noticed in a fairly reliable Marathi source with an article about him. Besides, since it is quite presumable that almost all of those citations have been independent of Joshi, it should also be presumable that the substantial biographical coverage of him in the non-English source(s) did not result from self-promotion either. Furthermore, it is equally evident that a substantial (or encyclopedic) article could be written from reliable sources. Deletion is nearly out of the question. And pretty much the same could, of course, be said about Hill as well. — Hinduresci ( talk) 17:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non notable self-promoter. It looks like that this person has spent less time in being an "author, philosopher" and spent more time in promoting himself across Wikipedia projects. Capitals00 ( talk) 16:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Yours is a subjective viewpoint virtually contradicted by evidence. — Hinduresci ( talk) 16:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. Pretty obvious consensus here. Don't understand why this was relisted. A Train talk 20:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Sharn (Forgotten Realms)

AfDs for this article:
Sharn (Forgotten Realms) (  | 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. All sources are primary or from user forums. Argento Surfer ( talk) 14:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c ) ( m) 19:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Blythe (doll). Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 18:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

This Is Blythe

This Is Blythe (  | 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 book from non-notable author with virtually no in-depth coverage.

Long existing article that has a somewhat problematic editing history. Sources are poor, and would seem to fail reliability test. Time to put it before the community for review. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Blythe (doll) Gina Garan has received some coverage of her work, for example here, in what I think is a questionable "Forbes contributor" source, and here. There are mores sources but in totality it's not enough to make this book notable enough for a standalone article, or even for an article on Garan herself. Mduvekot ( talk) 19:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c ) ( m) 19:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Sussex#Campus media. Why this was relisted with such a clear consensus? A Train talk 20:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

University Radio Falmer

University Radio Falmer (  | 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 page was created in April 2009 and most of the initial edits were by a single user, Arcmon, who hasn't made any other contributions to Wikipedia either before or after. All but one of the references are now dead links, and a Google news search for "University Radio Falmer" gives only one result, to a reblogged press release. I would suggest that the article fails to meet Wikipedia's threshold for notability ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 10:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  11:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  11:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to University of Sussex#Campus media. Nothing to suggest this needs a stand alone article, and nothing to write one with. GMG talk 14:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect. There are a few sources floating around in a Google search, but not enough to require a separate article when University of Sussex#Campus media is available as a natural place to cover this station and the university's other media. I added a little bit there. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 16:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect as noted. Back in 2009 those links still actually went somewhere. If they're dead there's no content here. Syrthiss ( talk) 16:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect It's a shame there are no further sources since the station has been around since 1970s, but since that's the case it isn't notable on its own Aloneinthewild ( talk) 17:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect as noted. It's true that this isn't reliably sourced well enough to stand alone as an independent article topic, but it's verifiable enough to merit a mention in the university's article — which, in fact, is precisely what WP:NMEDIA dictates for student media outlets that cannot be sourced well enough to stand alone. For a station that's been around since the 1970s and used to operate on a conventional broadcast band, I suspect that better sources actually might exist in archived media databases, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can dig out enough media coverage from microfilms or whatever to do better than this, but it's not exempted from having to be properly sourced just because I think better sources might exist if nobody can actually show that better sources do exist. Bearcat ( talk) 14:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC) reply
After a week, there's not been much progress on the article: a comment on my own talk page, and a handful of predominantly unconstructive edits by sockpuppets (most of which have required reversion) ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 10:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c ) ( m) 19:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clearly no consensus to delete this article. Merge discussion can continue on the article's talk page if desired. A Train talk 20:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Bare-metal server

Bare-metal server (  | 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 a redundant page, describing a lot most of the things in computer server. Also only has three citations. AtlasDuane ( talk) 09:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Keep It's not redundant, because although a bare metal server is simply a computer server, the term is used when in contrast to a virtual server. With the growth of cloud computing in particular, we now need to make that as a distinction we just didn't need a few years ago.
As to the number of citations, then you're welcome to add some more. What is WP:POLICY now ? Articles need to have 4 citations or they're speedy-deleted? Or is it 5? Or 23? Andy Dingley ( talk) 09:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 09:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 09:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This term is more than eligible for inclusion, but it's an editorial judgement about whether it warrants a separate article. The issue is how much of the article's content is better covered elsewhere, and what scope should be left for this article. Once that is determined, are we left with a WP:PERMASTUB, and is that actually an issue, or are we better off redirecting to a subsection of another article. TheDragonFire ( talk) 07:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
So where would you merge it? To Virtual server? - where we don't even have an article? And which represents the opposite of this term. Andy Dingley ( talk) 09:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
"Redirect to somewhere we haven't got" How does that work then?
Also when did " article is low-quality" become a reason to WP:DELETE? Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Dedicated hosting service may be an option. And I'm advocating deletion of most of the existing content as an editorial decision, not as an AfD one. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
So because this article is "so badly sourced it must be deleted at once!", you want to redirect it to Dedicated hosting service. Which has no working references at all. Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
You're correct, my vote should have been Merge. That said, not everything at AfD is entirely about the existence of sources. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Is the purpose of Wikipedia still to be an encyclopedia? (I'm unconvinced this week) As "bare-metal server" is a current term of art (just look at Google), then how is this encyclopedic goal served by redirecting a WP:NOTABLE term to an unsourced article that doesn't mention it? Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c ) ( m) 19:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Battle of Tolbiac. A Train talk 07:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Battle of Strasbourg (506)

Battle of Strasbourg (506) (  | 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 couldn't verify the information in this article. I have no idea which source "Fertig 2" is supposed to be, but in any case I only find reliable sources about the battle in 357, and not about this one (looking in English and German). Fram ( talk) 07:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Keep as I've found the sources mentioned, including Fertig, and added new ones both in the text and the bibliography. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 09:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • And which of these sources discuss a Battle of Strasbourg in 506? For example "Fertig 2, 281" is highly unlikely, as Fertig 2 has only 16 pages [6] (Fertig 1 has bout 30 pages, so even a combined edition wouldn't get so far). All I see in e.g. Wood [7] is general discussion about a 506 battle, probably about the Battle of Tolbiac, nothing about a 506 battle of Strasbourg. Please indicate exactly which source, on which page, discusses the actual topic of this article. Fram ( talk) 09:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
      • If you read the text, you'll see that the Fertig reference follows the sentence "A panegyric by Ennodius about Theodoric the Great speaks exaggeratedly of a victory by Theodoric over the Alamanni." I've checked the references and they appear to back up the text they refer to. Why don't you work with me to help improve the article further? Just a thought. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 14:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
        • The Fertig reference? You mean the one pointing to a page number that doesn't exist? Why, instead of all this, can't you answer a very simple question: which source, page, line discusses a 506 Battle in Strasbourg. If possible, please provide a link to an online copy. Fram ( talk) 14:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge or redirect (perhaps rename and repurpose) -- Alamannia deals with its subjection to the Franks and Ostrogoths. The whole basis of this article is that there "must have" been a battle, which some historians postulate to be near Strasbourg. Any argument using "must have" implies a guess, which should mean that the subject is not suitable for an encyclopedia article. The broader subject as to what historians suggest to have happened might be. The matter is covered in the Merovingian Duchy section of Alamannia, and it might be appropriate to have a more detailed "main" article on this, and this article might be restructured and repurposed for this, but it cannot retain its present name and battle infobox, becasue we do not know where or even whether it took place. The target might be Conquest of southern Alamannia by the Franks. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep/Merge This battle may be hypothetical, however there are sources for it, and it could probably be merged into some expansive article. It is probably unreasonable to expect be able to find enough sources on a minor battle from 1500 years ago to expand on this, however the article is not too bad. Dysklyver 08:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Which sources are there for it? Please don't take the word of the article creator for it. "the article is not too bad" expect for that minor fact, that most sourecs are not about this battle but about well, perhaps, something happened between 501-507, it might have been in 506, it may have been a battle, but apart from one letter which vaguely refers to this we know nothing about it. If it needs to be merged or redirected, it should point to Battle of Tolbiac, which is actually, verifiably, and regularly speculated of having happened in 506, as mentioned at that article. This article is basically a fork based on thin air where so far not one actual reliable source with this speculation about a battle in Strasbourg has been given. Even if such a source would materialize eventually, it would have to be rather substantial anyway to warrant a full article and not just a footnote in an existing article. Fram ( talk) 09:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Sources found. Okay so I've added 2 sources that definitely support the article.
    • Geunich states that "Claude deduces, as most historians now do, that there were two or three battles between the Franks and the Alemanni. The first is supposed to have taken place at Zülpich [=Battle of Tolbiac] in the 480s or early 490s, leading to the knee injury of the Rhine-Frankish king, Sigibert. The second conflict, which was dated by Gregory to the "fifteenth year" of Clovis' reign, i.e. 496/97, was that "conversion battle" that led to his baptism. In the third battle, in the year 506, Clovis gave the Alemanni such a "crushing defeat" (at Strasbourg?)" that they "lost their political independence." This third battle was the occasion of the intervention of the Ostrogoth king, Theoderic the Great, who campaigned for the "exhausted remnants" of the Alemanni and ordered Clovis to stop."
    • Ewig more briefly states that in "506, an unforeseen event occurred. The Alemanni rose up against their Frankish overlords under a military king, who apparently mobilised the majority of the tribe. Clovis dealt them a devastating defeat (at Strasbourg?), which put an end to the political autonomy of the Alamanni, whose king fell in the battle, and which led to considerable upheaval in the land.... Worms and Speyer and the lands north of the Oos were annexed by Francia. The Franks pursued their vanquished enemies, who fled in droves to Rhaetia in the region governed and influenced by the Ostrogots."
    • The original text (in German) is on the talk page for those interested, but I've added the references to the article.
    • Other scholars mentioned by Geunich include Anton and Schäferdiek, but I haven't had time to research those. However, it's clear that there is more than enough evidence at this stage to warrant keeping and improving it. Bermicourt ( talk) 20:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks. So, at the time of your article creation, and at the time of your keep, you didn't actually have any sources about this battle, and the sources you added then also didn't mention the battle? Anyway, now we have two sources who have "(at Strasbourg?)". Basing an article on a coment in parentheses and with a question mark seems not enough to meet WP:N at all, which requires indepth, significant coverage, not throwaway speculation in brackets. Mentioning this speculation in an article about the Frankish-Alemannish battles is of course possible, but I see no reason to have a full article on two repetitions of "(at Strasbourg?)". Fram ( talk) 06:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Agree with Fram, the two sources provided suggest a hypothetical battle, without nailing down specifics. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
        • I've found yet another source by Johannes Hoops that refers to this battle in 506 as taking place wohl bei Straßburg i.e. "probably by Strasbourg". I'll add that too.
        • @Fram. The article isn't based on a comment in parentheses, its based on a scholarly assessment of the sources and Strasbourg is the place they believe it happened. That's history. The whole article is now well sourced and it's clear there is much more information out there than any of us first thought; of course it could be further improved as we look at the work of other scholars (I missed out Becher), but that's true of most articles here.
        • @Icewhiz. I think scholarly consensus is that this battle did take place; the only uncertainty is where. But there is general agreement that Strasbourg is likely. We could add a "?" to the title, but IMHO that's unnecessary; the article explains the situation.
        • These new sources put the veracity of the article beyond doubt and this delete discussion should be closed. What is now needed is work by genuinely interested editors to improve the article, based on the additional sources I have mentioned and maybe then a review alongside other related articles like the Battle of Tolbiac. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 07:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
          • The whole article is now well sourced? Yes, if you believe including sources you haven't seen and pages which don't exist is "well-sourced", then sure. "a scholarly assessment of the sources and Strasbourg is the place they believe it happened. " Well, you have one source putting it "probably in Strassburg", two sources putting it in parentheses and with a question mark, and you ignore the sources which think the 506 battle is the Tolbiac battle. What is needed is what has been suggested by others, a general article about the Franko-Alemannish conflict of 490-506 or thereabouts (now a section in Alamannia), discussing things like this sometimes hypothesed Battle of Strasbourg and the much more well-established battle of Tolbiac. The article we have here has very little info on the actual battle and a lot on the historical background, so the obvious thing is to have an article on the historical background where the very little info on the battle is included together with the other battles and different opinions. Fram ( talk) 08:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
            • That's a very unreasonable interpretation: the "sources you haven't seen" are in the article, fully referenced. I'm sorry you couldn't find the right page in one source, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist! Instead of criticising every improvement and new piece of evidence, why don't you welcome and encourage them? After all, it shows your intervention is paying off! And perhaps even work constructively and help me and others develop the article. Surely as an admin, you should be cheering us volunteer editors on, not wearing us down! This article is now way better referenced than many on Wikipedia. If we delete everything that doesn't meet FA standards, there'd be little left and, frankly, few editors willing to help. Bermicourt ( talk) 16:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge (or else keep) with Battle of Tolbiac. I do not believe there is consensus that these are different battles. The historiographical issues should be dealt with in one place. Srnec ( talk) 00:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Most scholars, however, would disagree with you and I'm inclined to go with them. "That the Franks defeated the Alemanni in 496 with the help of God, and that their king, Clovis, was then baptized in Reims, still belongs to the general knowledge which every half-educated [German] person has internalized since his school days." In other words, Geunich is saying that the notion that there was one decisive battle is an old schoolboy's tale; that recent scholarship has unpicked into the 2-3 battles he has described. While several scholars merge the 480s/early 490s conflict with the 496/497 at Tolbiac, few combine it with this separate battle in 506. But it'd be great if editors other than me did some actual research and added to the sum of human knowledge about this period of history. Bermicourt ( talk) 19:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC) reply
      • @ Bermicourt: - it might make sense to create a "Alamanni-Franks conflict" article - in such an article one could list possible battles, and evidence for their possible existence, as well as discuss battles where there is a consensus. The problem with this article it discusses a possible event that some historians surmise occurred at this year and location. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC) reply
        • @ Icewhiz:. That makes a lot of sense. From my research, it is difficult to untangle the battles clearly from one another in the primary sources so, not surprisingly, the secondary sources differ. Geunich, who does a summary of scholarly thinking, says most historians agree there were 2 or 3 battles. Whether the Battle of Tolbiac (=Zülpich) was first or second is unclear. If we created a generic "Frankish-Alemannic conflict" article, we'd need to merge this one and Battle of Tolbiac into it. I'm willing to give it a go, but would appreciate help. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 12:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC) reply
          • Tolbiac could remain standalone as a sub article (as there seems to be a consensus it happened), the wider conflict\war should cover it as well as surmised additional events and outcomes. Icewhiz ( talk) 18:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC) reply
            • Hmm. There was defo a battle at Zülpich (Tolbiac); that's mentioned by Gregory. But scholars don't agree on the date. I've seen all three dates associated with it. Essentially all that seems definite is that: there were at least 2 battles, one of which was at Zülpich, one was in 496/97 and one in 506; Sigobert was lamed at Zülpich; Clovis was the victor each time and converted to Christianity as a result of the 496/97 battle. The current Battle of Tolbiac article doesn't reflect the level of uncertainty over the Frankish-Alemannic conflict or the latest scholarly position. In reality, its details are almost as vague as Strasbourg. @ Auntieruth55: are you able to shed any light on this. Bermicourt ( talk) 19:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c ) ( m) 19:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Create Frankish-Alemannic conflict article and, depending on what that looks like, consider merging both battle articles into it as neither appears to be attested in any detail in the sources and several theories abound. For consistency, I'm using the same naming schema as another conflict in {{Campaignbox Battles of Clovis I}} called the Frankish-Thuringian campaign (491), but for which I can find no sources at all! for which I have now found several sources. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 09:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Merge to proposed putative name above. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Very clearly no consensus to delete here. Discussion about redirection can continue on the article talk pages, as necessary. A Train talk 20:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheepdog

Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheepdog (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Don't Give Up the Sheep (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sheep Ahoy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Double or Mutton (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Steal Wool (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ready, Woolen and Able (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A Sheep in the Deep (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Woolen Under Where (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Persistent edit-warring and blanking of these articles. AfD the lot, let's get some agreement as to whether they belong or not. Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Keep the lot. These are clearly real cartoons of the 1950s, produced by a major studio and distributed worldwide. I can see no reason why they fail any of our notability policies. I can see no reason to keep one article and delete the others, as has been happening repeatedly (not even merging, simply blanking them).
If sourcing is currently poor, then WP:SOFIXIT. This is US mass-market media within living memory. Surely the sources are out there for those who know animation history. Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment - btw, I'd be more than willing to create that table in the target if the end result is to redirect. Onel5969 TT me 17:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I don't know, many of the Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies shorts are discussed extensively. Unfortunately, it's not exactly too easy to get a hold of a lot of these sources. I've personally been wanting to expand upon some of these articles for some time (and have done some before). I could imagine at least Don't Give Up the Sheep staying, as it was a milestones short, being the debut of Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheepdog. Let's start with this. Unfortunately, that book preview only shows a tiny bit of observation about it, but if what is said about the other shorts are indication, a few things of substance may be said. I'll have to look more into this later. Kokoro20 ( talk) 18:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I'm the author of these articles. At one point in time, they were awarded with a DYK for the research I did on which scenes were eventually censored. If I recall correctly, somebody then came along and deleted those facts (along with the references) claiming they were trivial, which triggered the corresponding images to be deleted, and then a year later they came back to complain that the articles contain no references. I just don't have the energy to devote to Wikipedia politics any more. -- Skrapion ( talk) 00:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Things like the censorship of the smoking break is exactly what makes these interesting as encyclopedia articles. But repeatedly blanking them and shouting "just not notable!" is so much easier. Andy Dingley ( talk) 00:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply
All of these deletions seem to have been done by a single editor. This is pretty much all they do, and their clear POV is evident from their username. Andy Dingley ( talk) 00:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To check whether significant sources could be discovered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric On leave 05:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, AD's argument is that the articles do not violate any policies, which is not a mere ILIKEIT argument. It isn't really necessary to advise the closing admin, but if you must do so, please don't misrepresent the opposing views. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, saying an article doesn't meet GNG or any of the policies/guidelines to warrant inclusion, but it does not "violate any policies" is pretty much a paraphrase of "This is a really great article, and I think it should stay", which is one of the 3 concrete examples given in ILIKEIT. Onel5969 TT me 12:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Setting aside the fact that ILIKEIT is an essay which I am perfectly free to ignore, the keep !voters have not said that the article doesn't meet GNG or any of the policies/guidelines to warrant inclusion. In fact, this was AD's exact wording: I can see no reason why they fail any of our notability policies. Lepricavark ( talk) 15:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
It's an essay dealing specifically with arguments not to use in AfD discussions. Yes, you are free to ignore it. Others are free to take note of it. None of the arguments have shown that these articles pass WP:GNG. Saying something, without proof, is meaningless. Onel5969 TT me 15:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
I know what the essay is about, and it does not apply in any case because saying that the article does not fail notability polices is not the same as saying "I like it." Lepricavark ( talk) 16:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most people are saying to keep the parent article, no consensus yet on the others.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c ) ( m) 19:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 08:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Kevin Deutsch

Kevin Deutsch (  | 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 sourcing to pass GNG outside of a brouhaha over sourcing of a book. Tossing aside coverage of this single event, quoting the words of the complainant at an ongoing AN/I case over edit-warring on this piece, "His '15 year career in journalism' is not actually particularly notable and would likely be deleted as a stand-alone article."

I personally have no strong views on the matter but would like community input as to whether this individual's biography does or does not fulfill the General Notability Guideline or, failing that, any relevant Special Notability Guideline. Thanks. Carrite ( talk) 12:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mark the train Discuss 13:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mark the train Discuss 13:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Mark the train Discuss 13:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, albeit with some reluctance. (I was the one who said the above quote and brought this to ANI originally... and maybe I'll regret this !vote if the POV-pushing edit war continues eternally.) Deutsch doesn't qualify as a low-profile individual - he's self-promoted himself, he's written books & done book signing & self-promotion events, etc. So while his "normal" journalism career is of no importance as far as sources are concerned, his work as an author is of borderline notability, and the scandal was large and long-running enough as to not be a WP:BLP1E issue. (It also involved more than just the book... it also tainted the journalism career, with editor's notes and redactions being made retroactively to articles he wrote. So the SCANDAL was notable if not the career itself.) The fact that the scandal originally broke in March 2017, and has kept rolling since then with things like this April 2017 Rolling Stone article or this September 2017 Washington Post story, which are willing to make comparisons with notable-for-the-wrong-reasons journalists like Jayson Blair, also shows that the issue has legs. SnowFire ( talk) 13:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, Snowfire has pegged this one exactly. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • As the original article creator, I recall that the rationale for approval of the article initially was fact that Deutsch's books are carried in multiple libraries he and has written high profile stories for major pubs. If he was notable enough for inclusion then, he probably is now. That being said, I have concerns about what appear to be pretty transparent attempts to harm subject's reputation through excising of neutrality from article. I think the admins must make the final call here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexVegaEsquire ( talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 05:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c ) ( m) 19:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 V speeds#Regulatory V-speeds. With the caveat that expansion into a proper article with sources is still allowed. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Overspeed (aeronautics)

Overspeed (aeronautics) (  | 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 so-called "article" escapes speedy deletion criteria by a hair! In essence, this article says nothing more than "overspeed is too much speed". It consists of:

If it said anything more, we could have merged it into ... well, there are a lot of candidates. Codename Lisa ( talk) 05:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Mark the train Discuss 05:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to V speeds#Regulatory V-speeds, where it is mentioned. While severely underdeveloped, the article makes sense. The five lines are a starting list of what are termed V speeds. Overspeed itself is a standard concept in aircraft operation [8] and commercial aircraft have an audible overspeed alarm when Vmo, the maximum operating speed, is exceeded. Because an overspeed alarm condition is defined relative to a particular aircraft's Vmo (and Mmo, the Mach equivalent), redirecting to the V speed article provides the best context for readers. It is conceivable the topic could be expanded beyond a mention, in say flight envelope, but redirect is best option until that happens. -- Mark viking ( talk) 11:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oh, I see. Judging from what you said, the first line (advice-like) is VNE, the second is VFC, the third is VMO, the fourth is VFE, the fifth is VLE and the last is VLO. So, it is basically category-2 patent nonsense, not category-1. Thanks for explanation. — Codename Lisa ( talk) 12:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c ) ( m) 19:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Vijaya Lawate

Vijaya Lawate (  | 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 significant references for notability; known promotional editor DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train talk 07:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Juni Cortez

Juni Cortez (  | 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 fictional character has no independent notability outside of the films which it appears. The article has been plot cruft and references for several years before today and as far as I can see the sources are not remotely good enough to esstablish any notability. Interviews form creaters and random webistes are not relibale sources. ★Trekker ( talk) 18:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  • KEEP Nominator, your argument makes no sense. This fictional character has no independent notability outside of the films which it appears A fictional character would always have notability in and around the work that the character appears in. The article subject, the character has received significant coverage in multiple WP:RS. This article passes WP:GNG. Bythebooklibrary ( talk) 18:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply
No I recommend you rephrase that because your comment makes little sense. A character does not always have notability within its own world. The only decent ref I see speaks about the characters sister in depth, not the character in question. ★Trekker ( talk) 18:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Bythebooklibrary: I would recommend providing links to prove that the character has "received significant coverage in multiple WP:RS", which you have stated above. The nominator's argument is well constructed so I would advise you to read the arguments for AfDs more carefully in the future. Aoba47 ( talk) 13:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • "A fictional character would always have notability in and around the work that the character appears in." That is false, per WP:INHERITED that character would need independent notability from the work they appear in. Also, the coverage shown is not "significant". ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 09:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 19:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Is WP:FANCRUFT that fails the general notability guidelines. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 09:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this character does not have enough real world notability to justify an article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I see no policy-oriented arguments for deletion and no evidence of an actual WP:BEFORE - WP policy requires that AfD noms proceed on the basis of the notability of the subject, not as demonstrated in the article. This character is discussed (not as a TRIVIALMENTION) in such books as Mediated Boyhoods and Home Movies and has a whole chapter in Critical Approaches to the films of Robert Rodriguez, as well as another in a doctoral thesis by Victoria Kearley. This clearly meets WP:GNG, and I am getting tired of people citing WP:FANCRUFT as if it were a policy and as if it gave guidance on notability issues. In-universe style in articles is a WP:FIXIT issue, not a policy-based ground for deletion. Also, it is for the nominator and the Delete voters to do the WP:BEFORE, FFS. Newimpartial ( talk) 21:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Acting high and mighty like people are crazy for not doing a deep dive into non fiction books about movies is not helping either. If this is really true, then give some proof instead of saying "gosh, check out the books from the library" and maybe people will change their vote. The burden of providing sources is on the creator of the article. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 00:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Except that the burden actually isn't there, in the case of AfD - the deletion criteria clearly state that the responsibility lies with the nom to do the BEFORE, and not to base the nomination on the state of the referencing in the article. I really do not know how the documentation could be more clear.
All of the books and the dissertation I cited came up in a simple search of Google Scholar. The responsibility is on anyone nominating a fictional subject for deletion or crying "FANCRUFT" to do at least this basic level of research. This isn't a matter of "high and mighty", it's a matter of respect for the bloody rules. Newimpartial ( talk) 00:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Doing "BEFORE" is not contingent on searching every method in existence, when the author of the article can't bother to source it, and nothing comes up in a basic search. If the sources are obscure, they should be included, or at least demonstrated in the AfD, without blaming the nominator and making it into a WP:ADHOM. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 09:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
The nom offered no evidence of doing any BEFORE, and your own !vote cited the GNG even though a simple Google Scholar search shows that GNG is met by this subject. That isn't "searching every method in existence"; it's the essential minimum in cases where regular web or media searches are likely to result in long lists of fan-generated material or trivial mentions. According to WP policy, insufficient citation in an article is never grounds for AfD aside from BLP issues. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: no consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 01:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
comment - sadly, this experienced editor is contributing a non-policy-compliant !vote here. I have listed sources providing SIGCOV so there is no grounds for deletion per GNG. AfD is not cleanup. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
comment - Can I just point out that this is another !vote that is not compliant with policy. We are supposed to be having an AfD discussion about whether the subject of the article meets GNG requirements. I have listed four substantial academic references (found using Google scholar) that show that it does. This !voter has clearly not even read the discussion, and has not provided any rationale grounded in anything but an IDONTLIKEIT reaction to the existing article. Not policy compliant. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
You did not "list" four references, merely noted that they existed in the manner of WP:SOURCESEARCH. You should link to them and demonstrate how they show real world notability if you want people to take them as legitimate arguments towards the article's notability. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 15:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
I most certainly did list them, by name, and described how I found them. There is absolutely no requirement for me to provide links - the way you are shifting the onus looks a lot like just moving the goalposts, from here. The AfD criteria and the GNG are actually quite clear. Newimpartial ( talk) 15:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 04:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
@ MichaelQSchmidt: But James Tiberius Kirk does have real world significance. Much has been written about him apart from the in universe story line, he is a benchmark against which other SciFi spaceship captains are measured, and his is probably a household name. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 03:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
He's fictional yes, and just as with Juni, all sources speak about him in relationship to Star Trek....the series which created him. The "slippery slope" is when one uses a personal opinion about how "important" that series is to its target audience. Better than arguing the issue, it might be better to redirect to where the information in Juni already exists... Spy Kids (franchise). Schmidt, Michael Q.
Comment Yet another !vote with no policy basis, and which does not seem to reflect even a cursory look at the sources on the topic. Newimpartial ( talk) 01:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Provide links to the sources rather than an assertion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c ) ( m) 19:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It is not WP:FANCRUFT . Character was arguable to ,main character in the first Spykids film as per the Google books source given in the article. desmay ( talk) 18:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Barely any proper coverage specific to this fictional character, the refs given are barely related to the subject nad often make a passing mention at best; not to mention one of them is slideshow by Entertainment Weekly and another is a 8 Top Secret Facts tabloid article by People's Choice. Nothing to prove its notability at all (doesn't pass GNG by any regards). Also, Newimpartial needs to stop badgering every "Delete" voter, especially with that placeholder "comment" at this point. -- QEDK ( 愛 • 海) 07:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
That argument might carry more weight, QEDK, if you had provided a policy-compliant argument on the notability of the topic rather than an irrelevant digression on the sourcing of the article (but disguised as a !vote). Newimpartial ( talk) 15:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

2018 in the United States

2018 in the United States (  | 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 useful content. Incumbents removed due to WP:Crystal and fact we don't know who the incumbents will be in a few months time ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 00:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. For comparison purposes, let's look at 2017 in the United States. It was created in June 2016 with this edit, which seems to be a more concrete event than we have in the 2018 article currently. The 2016 version was created on 19 December 2015 ( here). 2015, meanwhile, was created in July 2014 ( here), and had much more structure than the other first edits I'm seeing. So being premature isn't, itself, a reason to delete - we've had more premature articles of this type in past years. As for content, well we know there will be events in 2018, and that they will happen in the United States, so we should probably consider adding them. Midterm elections, for example. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 17:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 17:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I would agree with the above comment that the issue here seems to be more the current content (and past content) than whether a page for 2018 is viable at this stage as pointed out above there are legitimate things that could go here eg the various scheduled elections, scheduled major sporting events etc Dunarc ( talk) 21:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral. Technically nom is correct, however this will be created in this form in less than 3 months (assuming the world doesn't end prior to 2018, and the country still exists). Similar articles were created in years past prior to the year beginning. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c ) ( m) 19:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per nominator's !vote, unopposed. ( non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Augusta and Summerville Railroad

Augusta and Summerville Railroad (  | 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 excellent article stub about a particular short line is all original research. The article has no references that indicate the existence of the line or any of the details, apparently painstakingly collected since 2006. The article fails WP:V. This particular line is described in several legal articles[ [9]]. It is unclear that this makes the short line notable WP:N. The article ought to say why it is notable and deserves to be in an encyclopedia. Eleven years should be long enough to add these details to the article. It is up to the editor adding text to provide references. Rhadow ( talk) 17:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Mark the train Discuss 18:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mark the train Discuss 18:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mainly per G7, but a little bit of SNOW/ IAR as well. Primefac ( talk) 16:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Leslie Becker

Leslie Becker (  | 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 all four points of WP:NCREATIVE. Not "widely cited by peers or successors"; not "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique"; not a "significant or well-known work or collective body of work...the primary subject of an independent and notable work"; not subject of "a significant monument" etc. Likewise WP:NACTOR. ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The nom has failed to take note of WP:GNG. Talking about WP:NCREATIVE is fine but that guideline specifically says: Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; ... A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under  Wikipedia:Notability. Since the sources [14] [15] [16] etc. all have significant biographies on her, and given there is a significant number of supporting references to her in other reliable sources this is a keep for me. Dysklyver 19:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
It was intentional, I am guided by the mini-essay "It is not possible to tell whether or not something is notable by the WP:GNG" at User:DGG. As DGG says, these marginal cases can be argued either way. We need to examine it at this AfD on its merits, not by a rote formula.
By the way, is California College of the Arts (your second reference) definitely talking about the same individual? They look different and have different fields of study (graphic arts vs theater). And the third reference is a press release. So by your own standards this individual may not probably does not fulfill GNG. ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Dysklyver, if you are going to appeal to the GNG, it has to be used as it is supposed to be. The GNG is not based on what is reported in the references, but on the fact that there are substantial independent third party references that are not just press releases or notices--the principle behind it is that independent sources find her worth writing about. Consider your references. References 1 and 2 not independent--they will do to establish the basic facts or her career, but are worthless for notability, because it is the bio of her on her own employer's web site. Ref 2 furthermore is unreliable no matter where published because it is not a NPOV description, but unsupported praise of her, and is therefore in the nature of a press release. Reference 3 is a plain press release, labelled as such. All three of this fail the requirements of the GNG, which was written in order to make plain that references such as these do not show notability . I can often argue the detailed requirements of the GNG in either direction, but I can not possibly argue that these three meet it, because they unquestionably do not. If I think she is notable, it would have to be based on some other reason,such as showing she met the requirements at WP:CREATIVE, and can thus be presumed notable, despite the quality of the references. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Agree with everything DGG said, but I'm really wondering if this reference 2, California College of the Arts faculty, is the same person. Unless they can be two places at once it seems unlikely, as they are showing up as available for gigs in NYC and on faculty in San Francisco. ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Karam AboulHoda

Karam AboulHoda (  | 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 a notable businessperson. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 16:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America 1000 00:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

William Smith (registrar)

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

Completely unreferenced biography of a person notable primarily as a court registrar, which is not a notable position in and of itself — it makes him a clerk, not a jurist. The only other real notability claims being made here are that he was the father and grandfather of notable people (but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED) and vague, unsubstantiated claims that he was "prominent" for his marriage (but the article is written so awkwardly that it actually says he was married to an entire ethnic group rather than an individual woman, and while his actual wife is named in his daughter's article, it doesn't actually indicate any reason why his wife would be notable enough to make him "prominent" for marrying her either.) If there were any actual sourcing or substance here, it would probably be fine -- but as written, there's no discernible reason why he would qualify for an article. Bearcat ( talk) 16:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America 1000 00:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Disappearance of Charity Aiyedogbon

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

We are not a missing persons database and, as of now, there is scant evidence that this particular person's disappearance meets WP:NCRIME (despite the article being categorised as a crime). Literally hundreds of thousands of people go missing and quite a few of those do get contemporary mentions in the news media but no lasting notability etc can be gleaned from that. Sitush ( talk) 16:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  • I've given a detailed rationale and it is one that has applied to other recently deleted articles of this type. I even mentioned NCRIME, so I can only assume you didn't actually read what I wrote. Aside from Facebook rumours and a dodgy lawyer, there doesn't actually seem to be any basis for considering this to be a crime. As I said, people disappear all the time - about 250k missing person reports a year in the UK alone. If you want to follow up past discussions, see my recent list of what are now redlinks at Talk:List of people who disappeared mysteriously - click on them and you will get to the discussions themselves. - Sitush ( talk) 08:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I would put it more correctly that your rationale is not sufficient to get this article deleted. The West and other developed countries usually keep data or records of their populations more carefuly and efficiently than their less developed counterparts. As a result, whatever happens to any individual in their territory is usually a big deal. Besides, the Western media often gets information published regarding missing persons unlike their less developed counterparts. This is very glaring since there are hundreds of Wikipedia articles on missing persons from these very countries unlike this lone article about a missing Nigerian woman which unfortunately is the subject of this AFD discussion. In Africa and Nigeria to be precise, missing person cases are often under-reported and for this one to attract significant media coverage, then it means there's something unusual or special about it - Eruditescholar ( talk) 18:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Ah, the systemic bias card. It won't wash because it is nothing more than a run-of-the-mill disappearance. That's also why most of the 250k per annum misper reports in the oh-so-highly-developed UK won't wash either. We are not here to right great wrongs, nor are we a news outlet. - Sitush ( talk) 17:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • You seem to say the same thing at every AfD you participate in, BabbaQ. It sort of loses impact after a while because there never seems to be any sign that you have actually checked anything, hence some bizarre deployments of your boilerplate !keeo. - Sitush ( talk) 17:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • keep per EruditeScholar.
  • Keep  Passes WP:GNG with long-term coverage.  Here is a source from 19 September 2017.  As per WP:BEFORE B3, "If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors..."  Yet there is no discussion on the talk page of the article, and instead there is post-nomination discussion.  Unscintillating ( talk) 23:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Post-nom discussions are common. A BEFORE was done and I wasn't going to bother with discussing it at the talk page simply because perhaps a dozen of similar articles have been deleted in the last couple of weeks. I did mention it at List of people who disappeared mysteriously, which is the meeting point of all such articles. This one is no different from the others: occasional appeals relating to cases do occur but that doesn't make them notable. Go create Wikimissingpersons to complement the failed Wikinews, perhaps? - Sitush ( talk) 14:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • There is, for example, lasting coverage of many minor council officials but they are not considered notable. - Sitush ( talk) 14:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Given Nigeria is such a large country, the fact this particular case has attracted such attention suggests it is not a routine missing-persons case. The coverage seems to go beyond what would be normally expected. AusLondonder ( talk) 14:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Sitush; Seriously? While some of the sources used for this crime-related article come from Facebook; most of them come from multiple reliable sources which actually complement the sources from Facebook. Another thing I have observed until now: While anyone is free to contribute to this AFD discussion, I've observed that you've always seen something wrong with other contributors' input. Countering every contributor in this AFD discussion simply because they didn't vote in your favour is really wierd. I am not the sole determinant of the outcome of this AFD discussion but simply because previous AFD's have always closed in your favour doesn't necessarily mean this one will follow the same trend. There's always a first time. - Eruditescholar ( talk) 15:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
You are misunderstanding me. The story was driven by Facebook, a bit like Twitterstorms get reported in mainstream media. - Sitush ( talk) 15:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict):Comment I agree Facebook is not a reliable source, I'm talking about the coverage in newspapers. Some of that coverage included reporting on a petition from 63 civil society organisations to the police about their handling of the case. The involvement of those organisations suggests it is different to a routine occurrence. The Disappearance of Corrie McKeague is a similar case where Facebook campaigning has been heavily involved; that does not negate the notability of the disappearance. AusLondonder ( talk) 15:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  • I think I am going to give up here. It is obvious to me that Wikipedia is becoming a news website driven by the same social media agendas as tabloid newspapers. To be expected, I suppose: tabloids cater for the lowest-common denominator and, boy, is Wikipedia low. - Sitush ( talk) 15:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G5), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ren Yifan. MER-C 12:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Toi Lam

Toi Lam (  | 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 he is the co-founder of Hong Kong listed companies, I believe he fails individual notability as per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. If the company is notable, this certainly does not mean it's necessarily inherited to the founder as per WP:INHERIT. While there is mention of him, all sources given are business listings or routine company publications which mention him in his role. I have not been able to find editorial or profile articles that focus on the individual. Another point to note is the absence of WP article in the "native" language project. While this is not a strong argument for this discussion, I take this as reference point for an English article. Therefore, I make the case for deletion given a lack of notability. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 15:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Reactions to the March 2016 Istanbul bombing

Reactions to the March 2016 Istanbul bombing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly a QUOTEFARM which should be selectively merge on the main article. Fails WP:GNG. See, concurrent discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2016 Lahore suicide bombing (2nd nomination). Greenbörg (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) J 947( c ) ( m) 19:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Muhammad Sharif (cosmologist)

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

Tamgha-e-Imtiaz is fourth in level so certainly not enough. No widespread coverage for his achievements. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 07:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 07:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Zulfiqar Ahmad

Zulfiqar Ahmad (  | 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 achievement yet. No widespread coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A single source is not sufficient to satisfy notability, and the other keep !vote isn't addressing the notability concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Bashir Syed

Bashir Syed (  | 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:NACADEMICS. Better for CV but not for WP. Greenbörg (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
WP:SINGLESOURCE is not enough for passing WP:GNG. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 05:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Chetan k pandya

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

Run of the mill lawyer. None of the sources even approach significant coverage of the lawyer himself, and nothing more was found in a search. The 'specializations in' bit makes it cler that this article is intended as a promo piece. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ( or here) 12:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 01:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 14:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 16:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

John Hodian

John Hodian (  | 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 is not sufficiently notable Legacypac ( talk) 11:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 01:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 14:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

List of drug interactions

List of drug interactions (  | 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. Extremely limited list. For it to be of any use, it would have to be unmanageably long. If someone is looking for drug interactions, they can look up a specific drug. It duplicates information from each articles' page and not in a format that would ever be useful. Natureium ( talk) 14:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

The only possible use I can think of is if the article was scrapped and List of drug interactions instead gave a list of different types of drug interactions. Natureium ( talk) 14:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete as duplication of the drug articles' interactions sections. For types of interactions, we have Drug interaction. -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 15:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 19:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 19:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete At best incubate. The list/bracket format isn't suited for detailing drug interactions. As is stands it's almost meaningless to anybody who hasn't read more about the specific drug to find out how exactly the interaction works. And the article hasn't seen much improvement over the years. Mr. Magoo ( talk) 19:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Theoretically, there are nearly infinite drug-interactions (for example, every sedative interacts pharmacodynamically with every other medication that causes sedation, all serotonergics interact with each other, etc--and that's not even accounting for all intra-class interactions, let alone drug-disease state interactions (contraindications), all pharmacokinetic interactions--you get the point). Attempting to list them all is like counting sand. There's a reason that massive databases like Lexicomp exist, and WP is not Lexicomp. Furthermore, information like "potentiates" isn't even useful; drug-interactions exist on a spectrum of clinical significance, ranging from theoretical and clinically irrelevant to potentially lethal combinations.― Biochemistry🙴❤ 02:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Liaqat Ali Khan (mathematician)

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

Its more like a CV than a biography of encyclopedic nature. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMICS. Greenbörg (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Please, familiarize yourself with WP:GNG and WP:V because no article can pass GNG with namecheck or single source discussing him. Greenbörg (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 05:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Loel Guinness

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

Purely procedural.Per ticket:2017101010005881.Subject requires deletion.he would like to have a quit private life.......he no longer wants any information circulated on the Internet about him, he wants to live this retreat in anonymity......would like to be outside of all news.Editors are decided to judge the merits of the article and decide whether he is notable enough to sustain an article.Also, see WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 13:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

He doesn't (AFAIK) have any descendants? Are you thinking of the right person here?
WP:N might not be inherited, but money is. Being a rich member of the Guinness clan does place one within a milieu where notability is very easily acquired.
The question here is whether WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE should be followed, as requested, or not. Is a member of the Guinness family WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE?
I am puzzled by your content removals so far. You have removed material that is accurate and not derogatory (if we keep the article, we should keep it), yet left the specific piece of content that is complained of and only based on two poor quality sources. If anything goes, that should go first. Andy Dingley ( talk) 13:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
I removed details of his sister's husbands, I don't see how they have any relevance whatsoever to the article. Theroadislong ( talk) 14:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Niarchos is supposed to have been a close friend and influence on his own philanthropy Andy Dingley ( talk) 14:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Feel free to add back with any sources that mention it, the article is VERY poorly sourced at the moment. Theroadislong ( talk) 14:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Agreed. And yet you're keeping the most problematic part of it? Andy Dingley ( talk) 14:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Well it is sourced, unlike virtually everything else! Theroadislong ( talk) 14:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 07:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 07:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 07:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Murat Arslan

Murat Arslan (  | 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 significant coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources. Sole claim to notability appears to be cheating an online poll in 1998. –  Joe ( talk) 11:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –  Joe ( talk) 11:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. –  Joe ( talk) 11:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. –  Joe ( talk) 11:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. –  Joe ( talk) 11:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) J 947( c ) ( m) 19:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Transaviabaltika

Transaviabaltika (  | 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:NCORP. Little evidence from article or source search of notability per WP:GNG i.e. significant coverage in reliable sources. DrStrauss talk 10:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The rationale for deletion isn't on grounds of verifiability, it's on grounds of notability, specifically, significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. DrStrauss talk 18:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I've inserted sources from Estonia's publically-funded television and radio studio, complete with pictures, to show that Transaviabaltika has been operating in Estonia since 2016, and is contracted to do so until 2019. Axeman89 ( talk) 15:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep We have always considered all scheduled passenger airlines notable. WP is very inclusive about transportation. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- airlines with scheduled services are generally kept, even if small / regional. There's some opportunity for expansion, such as:
  • Lithuanian carrier Transaviabaltika submitted the winning tender in a procurement announced by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications last year for the operation of subsidized flights between the Estonian mainland and the capitals of its two largest Western islands. Transaviabaltika's contract was signed through May 31, 2019. source.
K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 criterion WP:G5. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ren Yifan. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 15:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Tse Kam Pang

Tse Kam Pang (  | 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 he is the CEO and founder of a Hong Kong listed company, I believe he fails individual notability as per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. If the company is notable, this certainly does not mean it's necessarily inherited to the founder as per WP:INHERIT. While there is mention of him, all sources given are business listings or routine company publications which mention him in his role. I have not been able to find editorial or profile articles that focus on the individual. Another point to note is the absence of WP article in the "native" language project. While this is not a strong argument for this discussion, I take this as reference point for an English article. Therefore, I make the case for deletion given a lack of notability. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) J 947( c ) ( m) 19:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

UTStarcom

UTStarcom (  | 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 lot of the article is advertisement-y. Probably does not meet WP:CORP - around half the few sources are from the company's webpage. Nerd1a4i ( talk) 00:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Sull, Donald N.; Wang, Yong (2005). Made In China: What Western Managers Can Learn from Trailblazing Chinese Entrepreneurs. Boston: Harvard Business Publishing. pp. 166–187. ISBN  1422163385. Retrieved 2017-10-11.

      The book notes on page 12:

      UTStarcom. Founded in 1995 through the merger of two telecommunications start-ups headquarted in the United States but focused on the Chinese market, UTStarcom has grown its revenues from $10 million in 1995 to $2 billion in 2003, a performance that landed UTStarcom a place on the 2003 Fortune 1000. UTStarcom achieved its rapid growth by developing and selling its "Personal Access System," which enables cordless phones to rove up to 60 miles within a city limit. At the end of 2003, UTStarcom's equipment served over 20 million customers in China, and the company exported telecommunications equipment to emerging markets such as India and to developed countries, including Japan and the United States. The company, which employs approximately 5,000, trades on the NASDAQ exchange and had a market capitalization exceeding $4 billion in September 2004.

      The book further notes on page 168:

      The Foundation of UTStarcom

      UTStarcom traces its routes back not to one entrepreneur, but to two—Hong Lu and Ying Wu, who independently founded the two companies that would later merge to become UTStarcom.

      The book further notes on pages 184–185:

      Although some constraints, such as cash management, are common across companies, others are company specific and often surprising. When UTStarcom started winning contracts from local operators in the late 1990s, for example, managmenet realized that the high price of Japanese-made handsets—which UTStarcom bought and resold at cost for $215—would dampen end-user demand for PAS systems. If end users couldn't afford the handsets, local telecommunications bureaus would not buy UTStarcom's equipment and the game would be over before it really began. UTStarcom initially tried outsourcing production to a Taiwanese company, but the contract manufacturers could only cut costs by 50 percent. Reluctantly, UTStarcom executives decided to design and manufacture the handsets themselves in China to bring costs below the $55 to $60 price point they felt was required to ensure widespread consumer adoption. UTStarcom's continued growth also depended on continued support (or, at minimum, tolerance) of PAS from the Ministry of Information Industry. Managing this constraint required UTStarcom to devote more attention to lobbying than would be typical for many start-ups.

      The company is profiled in detail on pages 166–187.
    2. Lee, Ellen (2005-09-18). "Utstarcom Eyes Market for Expansion - Alameda-Based Firm Loses Momentum in the Telecommunications Industry After Explosive Growth in Chinese Market". Contra Costa Times. Archived from the original on 2017-10-11. Retrieved 2017-10-11.

      The article notes:

      If UTStarcom Inc.'s saga were described with popular catchphrases, it'd go something like this: At the right place at the right time. All good things must come to an end. Been there, done that. Now what?

      During the late 1990s, the Alameda-based telecommunications equipment maker found an overlooked opportunity in China's emerging telecommunications market: China didn't have the infrastructure to offer reliable landline telephone calls, nor could it depend on cell phones, which were too expensive.

      Then came UTStarcom, which offered a hybrid: a telephone that acted like a mobile phone and looked like a mobile phone, but was based off of traditional landlines and only operated within city limits. UTStarcom sold the technology, called the Personal Access System, or PAS, to two of China's major carriers, China Netcom and China Telecom, and now has 47.5 million of China's 82.8 million PAS subscribers.

      The bet paid off: Named one of the nations' fastest-growing businesses by Business Week, Forbes and others, it saw its revenues more than double from $981.8 million in 2002 to nearly $2 billion in 2003.

    3. Grady, Barbara (2006-06-22). "Wireless player's revenue declines UTStarcom posts loss". Bay Area News Group. Archived from the original on 2017-10-11. Retrieved 2017-10-11.

      The article notes:

      UTStarcom Inc., the Alameda-based manufacturer of wireless telecommunications gear, posted a big drop in revenues for the first quarter of the year and a net loss — but the loss was not nearly as bad as the troubled company expected.

      UTStarcom has been in the midst of a major turnaround, both in operations and in products, after a year in which government agencies investigated its finances and customers seemed less interested in its major product.

      On Wednesday, UTStarcom reported first-quarter revenue of $596.6 million, down more than a third from $901.9 million in the same quarter last year, when it posted a profit.

      But the quarter’s net loss of 9 cents a share, or $10.6 million, was not nearly as bad as the 65 cents a share loss the company had warned Wall Street analysts was likely. Its cash flow was stronger than it has been and its profit margins higher.

    4. Heim, Kristi (2004-05-11). "Wireless Wonder - Alameda Company Finds Mobile Gold Mine in China". The Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2017-10-11. Retrieved 2017-10-11.

      The article notes:

      Street sweepers and grandmothers in China are helping a Bay Area telecom company strike it rich.

      UTStarcom has prospered by selling a low-cost mobile phone system to meet the needs of common people in China. And it has succeeded by blending Silicon Valley smarts, management and money with China's manufacturing ability and insatiable appetite for phone services.

      The idea behind UTStarcom started when Hong Lu, UTStarcom's chief executive, visited China in 1990 and had to dial 100 times to complete a call from Beijing to Shenzhen. He knew the country's decrepit phone system needed an upgrade.

      Lu started a company and initially focused on selling fixed-wire equipment but soon found a better option. Reviving a Japanese technology that was all but abandoned, Lu offered a way for Chinese phone companies to make the leap into wireless.

      The article also notes:

      box) When founded: 1991 as Unitech Telecom, which merged with Starcom Networks in 1995 to form UTStarcom.

      (box) Headquarters: Alameda

      (box) IPO: March 2000

      (box) Employees: 5,500 worldwide, including 4,600 in China and 500 in the United States

      (box) CEO: Hong Lu, 49

      (box) 2003 profit: $202 million, up 87 percent from 2002

      (box) 2003 sales: $1.96 billion, up 100 percent from 2002

    5. Barboza, David (2010-01-01). "Telecom Company to Pay $3 Million in China Bribe Case". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2017-10-11. Retrieved 2017-10-11.

      The article notes:

      For UTStarcom, which is based in Alameda, Calif., China is a crucial market. One of the company’s founders is a Chinese-born American, and most of the company’s operations and employees are based in China.

      UTStarcom, which sells networking and broadband equipment, has for the last decade sold large quantities of goods to three of China’s biggest government-owned telecommunications companies: China Netcom, China Telecom and China Mobile.

      S.E.C. officials said employees from many of the company’s big Chinese clients accepted bribes.

      ...

      The settlement comes at a difficult time for UTStarcom. The company is suffering through a sharp downturn in sales. It lost over $185 million in the first three quarters of 2008 and recently sold one of its plants in China.

    6. Malik, Om; Copeland, Michael V. (2003-10-01). "B2 100 The Fastest-Growing Technology Companies In our annual ranking of tech's supercharged, a company most people never heard of grabbed the No. 1 slot with a not-so-simple feat: It made a fortune in China". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2017-10-11. Retrieved 2017-10-11.

      The article notes:

      With its corporate headquarters in Alameda, Calif., Lu's company, UTStarcom, made a long-term bet on China, building most of its equipment there. That helped it win goodwill--and its products, which were cheap, smart, and engineered with Chinese users in mind, won customers. The firm has made $2 billion in China since 2000 and now employs 4,700 workers worldwide.

      And by all accounts, the company is just getting started. Its contrarian formula is easily exportable: Set up shop in-country, partner with the biggest phone company, and above all, make supercheap products that are minutely customized to local needs. Indeed, Lu is using the same business model in India, Indonesia, and Vietnam.

      It's that kind of thinking--taking calculated risks, going where the opportunities are, thinking about what the market really wants--that took UTStarcom to the top of Business 2.0's annual ranking of the fastest-growing tech companies. Its net income has grown 72 percent annually since 2000; this year alone the firm is expected to report $190 million in net profit on $1.8 billion in revenue. Don't think Wall Street hasn't noticed: UTStarcom's stock is up 112 percent so far this year--four times as much as the average stock on the rocketing Nasdaq--to $42.81 near the end of August.

    7. Hutheesing, Nikhil (2005-06-29). "UTStarcom Grasps For New Growth". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2017-10-11. Retrieved 2017-10-11.

      The article notes:

      Shares of UTStarcom continue to slide, and the stock now trades in the low $7 range–close to its 52-week low. The news for this once high-flying company, which provides telecom equipment mostly to service providers in China, has been dismal lately.

      ...

      While it will take a while for this company to win back investor confidence, it’s important to realize that the bad news is not a death sentence for the technology. PAS remains a low-cost alternative that allows people to use their cordless phones at home and then take them with them no matter where they go within city limits–and still make and receive phone calls. It’s a big business for China’s service providers.

      UTStarcom’s PAS business will still account for about $1 billion in sales this year, and probably next year, and I wouldn’t be surprised if at some point–maybe a year or two from now–demand from the service providers will pick up again for PAS products.

    8. Hutheesing, Nikhil (2003-09-23). "Will UTStarcom Get Shanghaied?". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2017-10-11. Retrieved 2017-10-11.

      The article notes:

      Though UTStarcom is based in the U.S., it is actually a wireless play on the fast-growing market for mobile phones in China. Founded in 1991, this provider of telecom infrastructure, software and handsets operates in a fast-growing market–China. The company does most of its business out of its offices in Beijing. UTSI has three joint ventures that include two manufacturing operations that it owns jointly with the Telecommunications Administrations in Guangdong and Zhejiang provinces. It also operates 12 customer support and sales centers around China.

      The company is run by two executives that are highly regarded internationally. Its chief executive, Hong Liang Lu Hong Liang Lu , was once the CEO of Kyocera Unison , a subsidiary of Kyocera International . Its vice chairman, Ying Wu Ying Wu , was once a member of the technical staff of Bellcore (now Telcordia ) and was a consultant to AT&T Bell Labs, now part of Lucent Technologies.

      UTStarcom offers the Chinese an affordable mobile service in nearly 300 cities, from Hangzhou to Xian. In China the prevailing wireless system is known as PAS, for Personal Access System. UTSI’s version of PAS dominates the market with a 60% share. UTSI’s clients include hundreds of small telephone providers in China, who in turn provide service for roughly 5 million people. Lucent Technologies and the Shenzhen, Guangdong-based Zhongxing Telecom sell their own PAS systems. They account for the remaining 40% of the market. At UTStarcom, sales of PAS equipment, service and handsets account for about 85% of its revenue.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow UTStarcom to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 05:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train talk 07:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Doug Ralph

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

Despite what superficially looks like a lot of sources, none of them are actually sufficient for WP:GNG - they are all either not independent or not significant, as detailed more fully in the previous AfD (which was no consensus). In the interests of full disclosure I will link the two more recent links I have found: this from "ABC Open", which is clearly not part of the ABC's editorial news coverage, and this which mentions that he was commemorated in parliament, which is nice but not unusual for local, non-notable community leaders. Frickeg ( talk) 07:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Frickeg ( talk) 07:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Both the article and the references read like eulogies, which isn't disqualifying by itself, but here they are indicative that most of the sources lack Independence of the subject. No significant coverage in independent sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Waiting for more participation to analyze depth of sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 01:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 08:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 08:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete. Seems to fail POL and AUTHOR. Sources do not establish GNG, and a BEFORE does not find much more. He might pass with a bit mpre high quality sources, but not at current level. Icewhiz ( talk) 21:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train talk 07:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Carly Mathis

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

Mathis' only notice has been winning Miss Georgia. This is not enough to show notability. The sources here and other sources are all just local sources reporting on this at the time, not enough to create actual notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • How are these passing mentions if the articles are about Mathis? Your ridiculous claims here and elsewhere prove that you should not be part of any AfDs because all you do is mislead people, have articles on women removed, and replace these by articles on obscure Mormons worldwide. gidonb ( talk) 04:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The WIS article os not in any way about Mathis, it is about the beauty pageant itself. The WAVE article is about a fluff action by a county comission, not the type of article that adds towards GNG. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The WXIX from Ohio is also in no way a substantial coverage of Mathis. It is actually the same article that ran in South Carolina, word for word. It is about the pageant, not in any way, shape, means or form about Mathis. Name dropping is not the stuff of passing GNG. The previous keep votes have significantly misrepresented the non-coverage involved here, and totally misconstrued GNG. The discussion on beauty pageant articles agreed they either need significant, indepdent, multi-state coverage of the subject, not just name dropping of the win itself, or sustained coverage for points unrelated to the beauty pageant itself. Neither of these are met by what amounts to name dropping articles that are repeated by stations in multiple locations without saying anything substantial about Mathis. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- no indications of notability or significance outside of the pageant career, and that alone has been established at AfD to not be sufficient to keep an article. Per prior outcomes, such articles are routinely deleted. Nothing stands out about this subject; the article consists mostly of trivia, as in:
  • "Mathis’ platform is “Heart Health and Heart Safety” and she said she hoped to work with the American Heart Association..." etc.
K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train talk 07:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Sweetman (disambiguation)

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

Ordinary, orphan WP:2DABS page. Disambiguation is not required: primary topic has a hatnote to the other use. De-PRODed by Patar knight. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 08:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Mark the train Discuss 09:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Mark the train Discuss 09:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Soft deletion functionally equivalent to an uncontested PROD Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 20:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Kamui (video game)

Kamui (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)

Sources are lacking outside of a few announcement articles. Did not get significant secondary coverage to pass WP:GNG. Sources in article are mainly WP:PRIMARY. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 11:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  11:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  11:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Directus

Directus (  | 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 software system excluded from Wikipedia by failing both parts of the test of WP:N: it is written is current marketing speak for software and created wholesale by an apparent SPA, making it excluded by WP:NOTSPAM. It also fails to gain significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are intellectually independent of the subject, making it fail the general notability guideline. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train talk 09:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Sachiko Watanabe

Sachiko Watanabe (  | 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:POLITICIAN - local politician with little coverage in independent, reliable sources. DrStrauss talk 13:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - Well, there is a ja.wiki article with a few sources. And it looks like they were tapped for a national taskforce related to wasteful public spending. She was apparently the keynote speaker and... some... sort of academic conference. It's really hard to say definitively without someone who can weigh in on the non-English sources. But it is easy to suspect that the reason we have a substantial article on the mayor of Chattanooga and not on the mayor of Tama, is because there are more people around who speak Tennessee than speak Japanese. GMG talk 14:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better. I can't read Japanese, so I can't speak to whether the Japanese sources on the ja wiki are reliable or substantive — I can only evaluate this on the basis of what's present in the English version. But once I stripped the inappropriate bulletlist of unsourced quotations and the pointless comment on how her first and last names are so common that her name is basically the Japanese equivalent of "John Smith", all that was left is "she exists". And the only reference cited at all is a single article in a university student publication about her speaking at a conference. The difference between this and Andy Berke isn't that more people here speak Tennessee than Japanese; it's that Andy Berke's article actually contains substance and reliable sources, neither of which are present here. And since AFD does not represent a permanent ban on the subject ever having an article at all, deletion of this inadequate version does not prevent somebody from trying again if they can do better. She'd surely be kept if somebody who can read Japanese could write and source a halfway decent article — but there's no need to keep a stub that's this unsubstantive and this poorly sourced. Bearcat ( talk) 17:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It is clear that the subject was/is the Mayor of Tama, Tokyo, with a population of 140,000+. The Japanese Wiki site has several links to articles about the subject in the Tama New Town Times and a link to a Geocities site which appears to have election results from 2002. There is also this article in Stars and Stripes (newspaper) referring to the subject as the Mayor. That all said, while I expect that the subject is notable, I am not quite confident that the existing sourcing is sufficient for a local politician (see WP:POLOUTCOMES). Perhaps the article should be tagged with WP:AFI -- Enos733 ( talk) 16:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could use a few more Japanese readers to weigh in on sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train talk 08:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 05:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Newton Running

Newton Running (  | 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 in-depth coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 08:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mark the train Discuss 09:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America 1000 01:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

SeaRise Office Tower

SeaRise Office Tower (  | 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 office building, one of a whole pile of such by the same editor. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/501 7th Avenue for example. DMacks ( talk) 20:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, quite a nicely constructed article, although the missing "history" from the building's 1976 construction to 2007 and then another gap until 2016 is a bit of a worry, but how is it notable to warrant an article, ie. any architecture/construction awards? is it historically significant? at the moment it exists and thats about it. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment  [22] says that the price paid per square foot was a record at the time.  I'm not yet sure about the size, it mentions 128,000 sq ft, but is that the sq ft per floor?  From the pictures, there appear to be about seven floors. 
    But...there is a company listed on the NYSE that is documented here, and we don't have an article on that company.  Unscintillating ( talk) 19:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- an advertorially toned page on an unremarkable office building, including the lead sentence that advertises it as:
  • "...a premier Class A office building ..."
The rest of the content is routine corporate developments, no encyclopedic value here. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Nomiki Konst

Nomiki Konst (  | 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 page should be deleted for the simple reason that she is not notable enough. There are two reliable sources in this article: two Arizona Daily Star articles about her announcement that she would run in the Democratic primary for a 2012 congressional seat as a recent University of Arizona graduate. If two 5-yr old articles is all there is, then she's not notable. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 07:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep There are 7 sources in the article, Aside from her 2012 candidacy, Konst is with The Young Turks, is regularly in the media and is part of the DNC unity commission. Plenty notable. Mo2010 ( talk) 09:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

These are the sources in the article: (i) A tweet, (ii) A website called "Zonie.com", (iii) a Youtube video from the crackpots at the Young Turks, (iv) the two Arizona Daily Star articles that I mentioned, (v) a Hill article that you just added (this Hill article mentions Konst once and it's in a list of people), and (vi) a government website listing Konst as one of the primary candidates in the 2012 election. If this individual is notable, you sure as hell can't tell it from the sourcing. The page looks like it was written by Konst to promote herself. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 09:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
"a Youtube video from the crackpots at the Young Turks" I see this is political more than an actual concern about sourcing. You not agreeing with The Young Turks is not a legitimate reason to delete this article. Mo2010 ( talk) 19:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Which is why I provided a different reason for deleting this article. I wouldn't call for the deletion of Jimmy Dore's or Cenk Uygur's pages because they are actually notable and have some RS coverage. Konst doesn't and this page is in violation of Wiki policy. Konst being willing to slap together her own Wikipedia page, doesn't mean she gets one. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
I have added additional sourcing including from The Washington Post and Mediaite that cover her and for the record I am the one that originally created this page. Mo2010 ( talk) 5:29 , 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The following sources have been added to the article: (i) a link to the website of a show she used to host, (ii) a story by the 'National Herald', which I've never heard of before but which describes itself as the "only daily Greek language publication in North America", (iii) a self-published Forbes op-ed, (iv) a brief Mediaite piece that mentions her once, and (v) a WaPo piece that actually covers her at length but only as a way to show how Sanders supporters responded to his loss in the Democratic primary. It's a narrative piece that takes one individual and looks at how he/she reacted to something (similar to stories of how Trump supporter X reacted to Trump action Y). The WaPo piece does not cover her as a notable individual who has accomplished things. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 10:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply
First the Forbes Op-ed is an interview piece not self published that covers her as an notable individual who has accomplished things. The Mediaite piece is about her and what happened to her at a protest she was covering in New York City. The WoPo piece partly covered her work to negotiate a trues between Bernie supporters and the Clinton campaign. She has more notable sources than Emma Vigeland, John Iadarola, Jacob Soboroff and others who are all similar to her but she is not notable enough for you despite having 12 independent sources. If they are notable than she is notable. Mo2010 ( talk) 21:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Those pages should also be deleted. Thanks for pointing them out. I'll take the appropriate action. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Actually, I can't. It might skirt a ban that the admins custom-made for me. I therefore encourage others reading this to request the deletion of those pages. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply
If you are banned from deleting those pages you should be banned from deleting this one. Mo2010 ( talk) 20:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
I'd like to point out that she helped write the DNC platform, is on the DNC reform commission, she appears on Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and others. When Keith Ellison was accused of being an Anti Semite when running for DNC Chair....who did MSNBC ask to come on? Nomiki Konst. When Vox was reporting on Kamala Harris 2020 prospects, who did they ask for comment? Nomiki. When Time Magizine was reporting on 2020 prospects, who did they ask? Nomiki. When Newsweek was reporting on 2020 prospects who did they ask for comment? Nomiki. I can go on and on if you want, I can go and catalouge every notable act she has done for the last couple of years and believe me, it will blow her current page out of the water
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 05:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 05:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. We do not have 12 independent sources here, as the creator claims. Right off the bat, four sources are not independent of her: #1 is her own primary source profile on the website of her agent; #2 is her own Twitter; #3 is a press release from a company she's worked for; #11 is content distributed by the show she works for. That's four primary sources that cannot assist notability at all, already. Then there are four more sources that cannot assist notability at all for different reasons: Mediaite is not a reliable source at all; the Arizona Secretary of State is a type of WP:ROUTINE source that every candidate in any election could always show regardless of their notability or lack thereof, because there's always an "all of the registered candidates" directory on the website of the relevant elections authority; one just namechecks her existence a single time in an article that isn't about her; and Q&A interviews can be used as supplementary sourcing for stray facts after notability has already been covered off, but cannot be bringers of notability as such because they represent the subject talking about herself.
    Which leaves us assessing four GNG-eligible sources, not 12: but of those four, two exist solely in the context of her candidacy for an election that she didn't win, one exists solely in the context of her having been a delegate to the presidential primaries, and one exists solely in the context of her being ethnically Greek. But being a non-winning candidate in an election is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia — she has to win the election, not just run in it, to be considered notable as a politician — and showing two sources about her candidacy doesn't make it special, because every candidate in any election could always show two sources about that. Being a primary delegate is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself, and being Greek is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself.
    As for being notable as a broadcaster, no reliable source coverage about that work has been shown at all — broadcasters have to be the subject of coverage in media outlets other than their own employer to qualify for Wikipedia articles, not just to be nominally verifiable in their employer's own self-published content. So, for all of those reasons, nothing here properly demonstrates that she qualifies for an article either as a broadcaster or as a politician. Bearcat ( talk) 23:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete candidates for congress are not notable for that, and her other actions do not rise to the level of being notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

This is a politically motivated action, https://twitter.com/bravenak/status/920148228506402817

There is a group of Hillary Clinton supporters on Twitter right now, laughing it up, acting as if "Wikipedia" is deleting this page bcos she isn't "Notable" enough. This is not true, this is not even how it works. I'm not sure who started this move to delete her page, but my guess is that they are also part of this same group.

Currently twitter users @UnseatBernie and @Bravenak are encouraging people to come here and state that all we really care about is sources.....and integrity of wikipedia....and yadah yah.

This is low, please don't fall for this nonsense, these are the same people trying to get her kicked off the DNC Reform Commission, get her kicked off TYT, get her kicked out of Womens Convention, etc, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shandunt ( talk • contribs) 07:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Unfortunate though that may be, we do not keep Wikipedia articles just to help the subject spite their opponents in a political dispute — we keep articles about people who can be properly sourced as passing a specific notability criterion. Bearcat ( talk) 18:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
- literally just do a basic google search and you will see that her name is mentioned across most of the mainstream press.....Nobody was advocating to create Nomiki's page out of spite - I was informing you that the exact opposite is happening. NOmiki's page was organically created a while ago without fuss....no one took issue with it UNTIL a bunch of clinton supporters started a campaign to erase her from as many sites as possible, including this one.

So what I am suggesting is to take with a grain of salt, many of the comments here, including mine, and compare Nomiki to her peers which also have pages on wikipedia which no one is contesting at the moment....look at how selective the concern is, is Marissa_Johnson really more notable than Nomiki Konst? Nomiki is a regular invited to give comment or appear on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, Time, The Blaze, Huffington Post. She is a reporter for TYT, an activist, a protester, Nomiki helped write the DNC Platform - SHE HELPED WRITE THE DNC PLATFORM, Nomiki is part of the DNC Reform commission, Nomiki is speaking at the womens convention, Nomiki has spoken at dozens of political events, she is regularly asked for comment by outlets like Vox, MIC, and many others. - literally just do a basic google search and you will see that her name is mentioned across most of the mainstream press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shandunt ( talk • contribs) 01:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete for lack of, well, notability. she has participated in founding a number of minor organizations; she ran for a party nomination to a seat in Congress, which produced a little ROUTINE coverage; and there was a profile of her as a delegate to her party's national convention - all of which fails to support notability. she's youngish; perhaps it is merely WP:TOOSOON, although lots of people do good work in activist movements and as party activists for a lifetime; even going to every state and national Party convention as a Delegate for decades without every becoming notable. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:BASIC as Konst has not "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Tweets and routine coverage related to a failed candidacy does not source a BLP. AusLondonder ( talk) 14:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I concur with most of the arguments about lack of independent secondary sources and lack of notability. It is possible that Ms. Konst may become suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia at a later date, but as matters stand now, I do not believe she meets the criteria for inclusion. Charlie GALVIN ( talk) 17:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Scout’s Oath (film)

Scout’s Oath (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)

Article about a short film, whose only stated claim of notability per WP:NFILM is that it exists. That would be all the notability it required if the article were referenced to enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG -- but the only references here are its own self-published Kickstarter and the primary source website of a film festival where it screened. As always, every film does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- we need to see reliable source coverage about the film in media, not just primary-source verification that it exists. Bearcat ( talk) 20:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply

First of all, it's a stub about a film short, that doesn't make the article less notable. I found the following sources:
Among others. -- evrik ( talk) 20:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
First of all, certainly short films aren't inherently less notable than feature films are, but feature films don't get an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist either — there are specific notability standards, spelled out at WP:NFILM, that a film has to meet to earn a Wikipedia article regardless of whether it's a feature or a short or a documentary or what. But none of those are sources that bolster notability at all: three of the five are just profiles on the program websites of film festivals that screened it, which are directly affiliated sources that cannot assist passage of WP:GNG, and both of the other two are blogs, which are never acceptable or reliable sources for anything. So no, none of those sources cut any mustard whatsoever. Bearcat ( talk) 22:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Procedural keep-I could have sworn this article already existed. It could use a little more meat and more independent sourcing, but I must question the AFDing of an article two hours old, written by a Wiki veteran of a decade, without going through the time-honored notability/refimprove tagging first.-- Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 01:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment It would have been nice to have been given more than two house to let the article grow. Here is another source:
We're not looking for coverage about the original lawsuit that the film was about — we're looking for coverage about the film as a film. That source would be perfectly fine for some verification of facts in the article, but it doesn't speak to the notability of the film at all, because it isn't about the film. And no, nobody owes you any particular amount of time to improve the article, either — you can always work on it in draft form, such as through WP:AFC or in your own user sandbox, but to be in articlespace today it has to already meet articlespace standards today. Bearcat ( talk) 14:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC) reply
There is enough here to let the article mature and give it time to grow. -- evrik ( talk) 17:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply
No, there isn't. The inclusion yardstick is measuring the sources, not the content, and there are no sources present here that are both reliable and about the film — every source is one of those things or the other, and none of them is both. Bearcat ( talk) 02:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 10:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The articles from newspapers are not about the film, but are both about the original lawsuit that the film happens to profile. As I already pointed out above, what we require is reliable source coverage about the film as a film — newspaper articles about the lawsuit, written 15 years before the film existed, do not assist in demonstrating the notability of the film. And exactly none of the sources that are about the film are reliable or notability-assisting ones at all. Bearcat ( talk) 17:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Article_alerts#AfD. -- evrik ( talk) 15:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion about the sources please. Additionally, if the sources are all talking about a notable incident and not the film itself, is there scope to make an article about the incident and redirect the film title there?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train talk 07:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for, above all, failing WP:GNG. The references are listings of where the film was shown or news stories about the events in the film, but not of the film itself. Perhaps the incidents are notable enough for an article creation - but that is not the debate here. Redirecting makes no sense if there's nothing to redirect too. Consensus appears very clear to delete. Ifnord ( talk) 15:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America 1000 01:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Stockland Traralgon

AfDs for this article:
Stockland Traralgon (  | 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:ORG and WP:GNG. at the last AfD the keep !votes were hardly convincing. there is nothing to suggest this is more than a run of the mill shopping centre. LibStar ( talk) 01:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply
This AFD is going to keep going round and round in circles. If there are sources that establish notability, add them, if not don't bother keeping the articles. Ajf773 ( talk) 00:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply
and I wouldn't count reports of assaults as adding to notability. LibStar ( talk) 02:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep  A list of sources is provided at the first AfD.  Further sources were identified at the "Morwell library and read up a lot about the opening in back issues of The Express newspaper."  That may be the same offline newspaper mentioned in that AfD as "Latrobe Valley Express".  Unscintillating ( talk) 22:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • And the sources provided in the first AFD were not even verified. In fact only two of them are online sources and neither of which mention anything other than trivial mentions. Ajf773 ( talk) 03:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Not sure what your point is.  What you are calling a "trivial mention", Laura Hale says, "The first mention puts the shopping mall as existing during the 1980s.." which is significant information she then uses to show that this was before the internet age. 
  • I have already shown that you mispoke about what constitutes a trivial mention.  I did this by comparing one of your statements with one of those by Laura Hale.  Your explanation here is of the form that anything that is not a claim to fame is a trivial mention.  The lede of WP:Notability states, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below."  And GNG discusses "trivial" without mentioning claims to fame.  Unscintillating ( talk) 03:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

What is the difference between listing the sources at the AfD and listing them in the article?  If offline, they would be just as inaccessible, and equally verifiable.  Some of those look like they should be available online.  The citations themselves serve as evidence, which is formally what WP:N requires.  You've got a testimony of reading sources at the Morwell library, "...I visited Morwell library and read up a lot about the opening in back issues of The Express newspaper."  Unscintillating ( talk) 03:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note the emphasis on the word "consider". A bunch of sources doesn't mean jack unless it clearly demonstrates a notable claim which I fail to see. Ajf773 ( talk) 08:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
But Wikipedia doesn't use a "notable claim" as a metric...I've already quoted from the guideline on that point.  We as a community figured out long ago that the opinions of individual editors could not be used as a metric.  Unscintillating ( talk) 12:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further discovery and evaluation of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric On leave 05:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. None of the editors arguing to delete addressed the academic citations uncovered by Piotrus. A Train talk 07:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Transracial (identity)

Transracial (identity) (  | 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've declined G4 on this as the content, and in particular the sources, are substantially different to the previously deleted version. However, given that an article on the same subject was deleted as the result of this discussion two years ago, I think it would be good to have a debate on this (relatively stub-ish) article. The sourcing has improved slightly in the meantime, with some academic texts addressing the topic, but I'm doubtful that it meets GNG as yet. GoldenRing ( talk) 08:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
For Rachel Dolezal:
For another individual:
In short, the concept is notable, has notable press coverage, and passes WP:GNG. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 03:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Those are mostly great examples of why there should be an article for Rachel Dolezal. But this supposed theory of transracial identity does not have notable academic usage or discussion in reliable sources dedicated to the topic. They’re nearly all dedicated to Dolezal. Having a separate page for this lends undue weight to it as a topic of its own right. Shelbystripes ( talk) 03:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Those sources put the term in quotes e.g ‘Transracial’ vs. Transgender. This indicates it is not an established term and this article should be titled "Transracial", but we don't have articles like that because that's not what encyclopedias do.-- Pontificalibus ( talk) 07:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric On leave 05:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not an established term as evidenced by the vast majority of reliable sources using scare quotes. Therefore it's not even suitable for a dictionary let alone an encyclopedia article. -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 07:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NEO and WP:TOOSOON. Not an well-established term (vast majority of reliable sources using scare quotes). Wikipedia's Rachel Dolezal article says she resigned from her NAACP position and that she committed several lies. desmay ( talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train talk 07:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I'm on Fire (mixtape)

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

Created by a confirmed sock. Basically fails WP:NALBUM — Oluwa2Chainz »» ( talk to me) 16:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Oluwa2Chainz »» ( talk to me) 16:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — Oluwa2Chainz »» ( talk to me) 16:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Not surprised, article creator is a sock of yourself per this investigation. — Oluwa2Chainz »» ( talk to me) 21:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Oh yes you are right, but that was like 4 years ago and I was just coming back from a long hiatus and didn't know what sock puppetry was at the time. Stanleytux ( talk) 23:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Point out reliable sources/critical reviews about the album. — Oluwa2Chainz »» ( talk to me) 23:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Most of links are dead. Why don't you check the archives or the ones I provided already at the other discussion about the artist. Stanleytux ( talk) 23:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric On leave 05:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
There's significant coverage in multiple reliable sources including Leadership, Vanguard, and The Guardian. Stanleytux ( talk) 06:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: - fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM Samat lib ( talk) 15:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. The mixtape definitely fails WP:NALBUM when looked at in detail. A Google search doesn't show the mixtape being discussed in detail. Of all the sources cited in the article and in this AFD, the Nigerian Sounds source is the only source that dicusses the album. Using the charting argument to justify a delete is invalid here since Nigeria doesn't have a national music chart system. The music scene in Nigeria and majority of Africa isn't well structured. If the mixtape was critically reviewed by Pulse Nigeria or Nigeria Entertainment Today, I would easily vote keep. The mixtape may not be popular across Nigeria, but it is definitely popular in PH. 50,000+ downloads certainly proves this. The Nigerian Sounds source alone is not enough for stand-alone inclusion.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 22:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train talk 07:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Senator International

Senator International (  | 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 am unconvinced that this company meets the notability requirements of WP:CORP. The references cited are predominantly primary sources or in a specialist publication that is of little use for demonstrating notability. More mainstream coverage (but still local) predominantly discusses the airport the company flies to, rather than the company itself. My own searches have not turned up anything better and so unless I have missed something, I think it falls short of meeting our requirements. SmartSE ( talk) 20:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The on-line sources are less than impressive:
  1. [25] is the website of the subject
  2. [26] This seems to be the only article with a byline. I'm not sure that it mentions anything we would find notable. It's used to support the statement "Since November 2016, "Senator International" has offered its own scheduled service from Munich and Frankfurt-Hahn to Greenville-Spartanburg using a Boeing 747 F."
  3. [27] That website doesn't seem to work; all I see is a logo.
  4. [28] Mentions a "a noteworthy biz model involving 4 parties". As far as I'm concerned, it's just another way of leasing a cargo plane.
  5. [29] is the website of a company the subject merged with
  6. [30] is the website of a company the formed a joint-venture with
  7. [31] Looks like a press release from München aiport announce that the subject leased a plane from Air Atlanta Icelandic. That's a routine anouncement, not news, and definitely not encyclopedic.
  8. [32] is the website of the subject
  9. [33] is the website of the subject
  10. [34] is the website of the subject
  11. [35] is the website of the subject
  12. [36] is the website of the subject
  13. [37] is the website of the subject
  14. [38] is the website of the subject
  15. [39] is the website of the subject
  16. [40] is a Business-to-business database
TLDR; It's an advertisement about a company that does not meet our general notability criteria and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. It is perhaps worth noting that a major contributor is a paid editor (no surprise, really). It takes some poking around, because User:Atomiccocktail and User: Einfach machen Hamburg, who are the same editor, has decided to disclose his COI at meta:User:Atomiccocktail, or rather at de:Benutzer:Einfach_machen_Hamburg but doesn't link to that account from the ones he uses to edit on enwiki. He does mention it in the edit summaries. Also note that the existance of an article on the subject in the German Wikipedia does not establish notability. German wikipedia has different policies and guidelines than enwiki. Mduvekot ( talk) 23:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
It seems as if this is just an odd campaign against paid editing. To my mind the statement on the sources distorts the reality.
This article is based mostly on information given in DVZ. The Deutsche Verkehrs-Zeitung (DVZ, formerly Deutsche Logistik-Zeitung) is a specialized journal of the transport and logistics branch since 1947. If information of company’s website is used, it is to service the reader: “Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used to verify some of the article's content.”, see WP:CORP.
Turnover, branches and recognition in their business field indicate the relevance of this company in its market. Not only FedEx or Kuehne + Nagel are players there. Atomiccocktail ( talk) 08:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric On leave 05:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per Mduvekot above, references fail the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing ++ 15:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Undeclared paid editing according the the enWP rules--the editing must be disclosed on the enWP for enWP articles, and at least at the enWP, running a company doing paid editing makes it necessary to declare oneself a paid editor for every article the company produces. Given that the references are inadequate, there is no basis for keeping the article. It's not the least odd for us to have a campaign against paid editing without explicit declaration, but our interpretation of COI policy. DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
There is no paid editing, which is not declared. The opposite is true. Every edit that has been paid is named as such. If edits were not paid, of course it was not said that this post was a paid edit. I would liked to know exactly which paid edit I had concealed. Atomiccocktail ( talk) 19:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A Train talk 07:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Cassie Jaye

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

Sources do not indicate this person meets WP:NBIO. Sources overwhelmingly focus on The Red Pill with relatively little coverage of Jaye herself, and no separate claims to notability.

This was a redirect to The Red Pill, but has been repeatedly restored without clear explanation. Grayfell ( talk) 23:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 17:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 17:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 17:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Articles about her and her work in NYT, Guardian, Evening Standard are referenced here and it's easy to find many more in e.g. Sydney Herald, The Australian, The New Daily, etc. What kind of reasoning is a separate article is not yet needed? A person is notable if they've done notable work and that notability is obvious from the many articles in mainstream sources that discuss her and her work. Agricola44 ( talk) 03:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect I don't see any individual notability for the director, only for their film. We don't have any policy that mandates articles for everyone who worked on something noteworthy (very few articles for people who work as best boys.) PeterTheFourth ( talk) 06:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The analogy you're making is, for example, that a lab technician is not notable because of important discoveries and I agree. That is because that lab technician is not the "responsible party". But, the lab head/principal investigator is notable for these important discoveries. That is the crux of PROF #1. For this case, the relevant criterion is ARTIST #3: The person has...played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.... Now, unless you're claiming that (1) Jaye did not play a major role in producing The Red Pill and (2) The Red Pill is itself not significant, you have not really made a convincing case for a redirect. You already concede (2) in saying that the film is actually notable. So, do you stick by (1), i.e. that she did not play an important role in producing this film? K.e.coffman's reasoning seems to be the same as yours... Agricola44 ( talk) 13:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
You seem to be referring to some guideline or policy when you say 'PROF #1' and 'ARTIST #3'. Could you link those please? PeterTheFourth ( talk) 19:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Yes, they are official guidelines for assessing notability. Here is WP:PROF, though I only mentioned this as an example. The relevant one here is WP:DIRECTOR...Jaye quite obviously meets criterion #3, since there are many mainstream sources (named above) that specifically discuss her and her film. Best, Agricola44 ( talk) 22:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
For Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria: If Jaye is a researcher who's work has influenced a discipline, what discipline? How, according to academic sources, has her research made a difference? This would still need reliable sources about that work, but we only have sources about the single movie she's made, and none of those sources discuss any sort of significant lasting impact on an academic field, nor is this likely for a relatively recently released film.
For Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals, that's more plausible, but the sources for The Red Pill do not suggest any sort of lasting legacy for the film either. There are no movies about the movie, nor any books or TV series. Is The Red Pill "significant"? Right now the film's article does a poor job of explaining that. It's mostly routine tabloid reviews, outrage culture op-eds, and news articles about the funding history and difficulty with screenings. The periodical reviews included are short and routine. There is very little indication of enduring coverage now that the film is out of theaters.
There has to be something more substantial than this. The important encyclopedic information about her can be placed on the film's article. The project isn't improved by poorly-sourced stubs for every single directer of every film. Grayfell ( talk) 22:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Well, like I said, PROF was only mentioned as an example. DIRECTOR is the relevant guideline: her work is "important" in the sense that there is lots of coverage in mainstream sources (NYT, Sydney Herald, et al.), which satisfies criterion 3. There's no need for "movies about the movie" or any of the other imaginary hurdles you mentioned. The article may be poorly written, but that is not what is being adjudicated here. We are only assessing notability and the many sources demonstrate she passes. Thx, Agricola44 ( talk) 22:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Per WP:DIRECTOR: ...In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. There's nothing imaginary about this, and if you're going to cite a guideline, you should cite the entire guideline. Grayfell ( talk) 23:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Another case where we're going to get down into the semantic mud, I suppose. This work has been the subject of many independent pieces in first-tier, mainstream sources, like NYT, Sydney Herald, etc...I count close to a dozen. So, I guess you're arguing that because the coverage isn't a movie about this movie, or a book about this movie, or a TV series about this movie, that her work is not notable, and by extension she is not notable. So, lots of coverage in NYT et al., but somehow that doesn't count. Do I have it? Agricola44 ( talk) 04:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
"Somehow"? Obviously you don't have it. "Independent and notable work" is somewhat subjective, but none of these works about the Red Pill are notable. Category:Documentary films about films and Category:Books about films are notable works about films that presumably meet this threhsold. I don't think a bog-standard collection of movie reviews is enough, otherwise what is the point? I suppose there's room for disagreement regarding where this line lies, but as I said, I don't see how this article helps the project when the reliable sources of substance about Jaye are about The Red Pill doc, and all information can easily be placed there.
As for the first NYT article, it's a single paragraph, internet-only blurb paraphrasing the Guardian article already cited. The prestige of the outlet should not be overstated in this case, and its use in the lede looks like WP:BOMBARDMENT. The second NYT one is more significant, but it's five paragraphs which says nothing about Jaye other than using her name as a shorthand way to critique the film.
As an aside, if the article survives, that film (The Right to Love: An American Family) should be added to the article. Grayfell ( talk) 20:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
My points are (1) that an artist is notable if her work is notable and (2) there are tons of top-tier sources that demonstrate such. We evidently disagree on point (1). Closing admin will adjudicate. Thanks, Agricola44 ( talk) 06:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
In response to those who feel this meets WP:DIRECTOR, condition #3 specifically says that the director's film output must be significant. There are only 6 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes for The Red Pill. [ [41]] This along with the sourcing shows the film exists, and has attracted attention for being controversial, but is really not significant. It might not even pass a deletion review of its own. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric On leave 05:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Although most of the coverage is about one of her films, that isn't the only thing she has gotten in the media for. See this, for example: [42]. And besides, considering the significant coverage that she has garnered, she seems to be notable anyways, as we have a large amount of coverage in reliable sources. Thus, the article should be kept and not deleted or redirected. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 12:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Jaye is arguably one of the most notable figures in the manosphere. Numerous protologisms and neoligisms can be traced to her if following the etymology. Furthermore, a redirect is not logical since the subject of the redirect was llargely about herself, making it somewhat of an autobiography, hence nodding towards notability. In a nutshell, Jaye is notable outside her profession. 92.13.131.144 ( talk) 18:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Everyone who is talking about WP:ACTOR, WP:DIRECTOR, etc are missing the point here. The criteria for biographical articles comes down to the same criteria as all other articles, from WP:BASIC: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. As part of the AfD discussion template, there are links to sources like Google News and Google Scholar and Google Books. Taking a look at this results News - 1550, Books: 600+ (although I'm sure many of these are false positives you can see pretty clearly from the previews that she's discussed in multiple books, Custom Search 15,000+... It's true that this article isn't currently making adequate use of the WP:RS that covers her, and that's problem. But in terms of the WP:BASIC there's no question. - Scarpy ( talk) 20:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not notable. One film and it's a direct-sale WP:FRINGE movement film. Morty C-137 ( talk) 21:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson ( talk) 01:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Now That's What I Call Music!. The bigger question is how to deal with music compilation series in general. I would suggest taking that discussion to WT:MUSIC. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Now That's What I Call Music! 52 (UK series)

Now That's What I Call Music! 52 (UK series) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not independently notable per NALBUM. We already have a container article for this series--well, "article" is a big word, it's just a list--and there is no need for this. Drmies ( talk) 17:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Mark the train Discuss 19:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mark the train Discuss 19:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: @ Drmies: I don't disagree with your deletion nomination, but out of curiosity, why did you pick this album out of the nearly 100 albums in the series? It seems to me that they are all equally (non-)notable, and if you delete one album, you may as well delete the articles for all of them.
I can see the notability of the overall "container" article Now That's What I Call Music!, because right from the first album they were huge sellers and had two effects on the UK charts: firstly, they showed the major record labels that they could put out their own "chart hits" albums and not license their tracks to the likes of K-Tel or Arcade; and secondly, their success was held responsible for the creation of the separate compilations chart in 1989. The first few albums in the series had some sort of novelty about them, and I would certainly be able to find actual album reviews for them – I remember reviews appearing in the UK music press at the time. But the series has long since descended into a three-times-a-year, regular-as-clockwork output, with nothing to distinguish the albums from each other. The usual single claim of notability is that they make number one on the UK compilations chart, but this really doesn't amount to anything, because the growth of DIY playlists from MP3s and Spotify in the last ten years has killed the compilations market, and the three annual Now! albums now account for up to 80% of all compilations sold in the UK each year, so getting to no. 1 when you have no competition is no great feat.
To be honest, in my view almost no individual compilation album is notable in its own right, and few compilation "series" are either – the Now!'s may be one of the few exceptions. Richard3120 ( talk) 23:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
    • I picked one at random. Actually, I picked two, but the first one I picked had charted. No, I am not going to nominate every single compilation album. BTW it's not just about sales, of course, and getting to no. 1 is really no better than getting to no. 2; reviews are much more valuable for purposes of the GNG. Drmies ( talk) 23:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Actually, this one charted as well, reaching no. 1 – unfortunately you can't check it on the OCC's website because they seem to have an error and don't display any charts between April 2002 and January 2004. But it was the third biggest-selling compilation of the year (behind Now! 53 and Now! 51, of course). All 97 Now! compilations to date have either reached no. 1 or, in very few cases, no. 2 on the compilation chart. So really, I do believe that either they are all notable, or none of them are notable. As almost none of the albums after the first half dozen have any reviews at all, I would lean towards the latter view. By the way, the editor most keen on making articles for all these compilations is Hadji87, if you want to notify him of this AfD. Richard3120 ( talk) 23:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
So the question for other editors viewing this AfD comes down to this: is making no. 1 on two national compilation charts notable enough to keep the article? This album is no more and no less notable than any other album in the series: either they should all be kept, or they should all go. Richard3120 ( talk) 13:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I agree that all could/should be redirected (which I had done for nearly all other countries' Now releases that had articles years ago). Individually, they offer nothing but the track listings for each release. Popularity doesn't mean notable if they don't receive any coverage beyond first-week charting/sales totals. If someone wanted to expand the discography page, chart positions and/or certifications received can be added there. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 18:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I've seen these before, and declined to nominate for AfD due to their chart success. I think the best solution is for all the individual albums to be merged to new per-country overview pages. I have no interest in doing any of this work, if nobody else is willing to volunteer this should be kept by default. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 15:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c ) ( m) 05:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 07:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect all to Now That's What I Call Music!, the container article, per the evidence and explanation given by Richard3120 above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Now That's What I Call Music!. An article like this one reveals the gap between the GNG and specialty sub-guidelines like WP:NALBUM. The reason that NALBUM asks that we preserve albums with high chart positions is because the guideline assumes that a high chart position will be correlated with lots of interesting things being written about that album. This is true 99% of the time, and then this is the 1% where it isn't. By the letter of the guideline, we need to keep this article, but the spirit of the guideline is to protect articles about which we could write encyclopedic articles. There is no potentially interesting prose to be written about this album, as far as anyone knows. If there had been a famous legal case involving Now! struggling to secure the rights to a particular song, or if the album had to be recalled because all of the songs had been overdubbed with satanic rituals, then we'd have an article. But just another hits compilation? A Train talk 07:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply
@ A Train: "satanic rituals"... some of these albums contain Justin Bieber songs, is that what you meant? Richard3120 ( talk) 09:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Bingo. A Train talk 09:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) J 947( c ) ( m) 18:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Evelyn Young

Evelyn Young (  | 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: as thoroughly non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 02:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c ) ( m) 05:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Mentions are not passing but lengthy and detailed. Both the movies The Wildcat of Tucson and Prairie Schooners are notable. There are many more references to the actress from the 1940s. gidonb ( talk) 05:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Leading roles in at least two films: The Wildcat of Tucson and Prairie Schooners. Good sourcing: American Film Institute and several Google books. desmay ( talk) 16:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This AfD is open already a while but all this while no case has been made for deletion. As is clear from the improved article, the actress meets both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. If one were to claim that the films in which Young has lead roles are non-notable, these could be listed for deletion, however these films meet WP:NFILM. My claim is not that other stuff exists. I reject such arguments. Rather I'm pointing out that there are obvious dependencies here. It's like the category that is listed for rename but the name change should be discussed at the critical article for that category. Same with a lead actress of multiple feature films at the " Big Six". Only if the movies are nevertheless proven non-notable it would even be conceivable that their lead actors are non-notable. And even then Young meets the WP:GNG. But without addressing the films no case for deletion would be possible. Sure, it is said in the intro that the actress is not notable by the relevant professional guideline. It is the how not notable by that guideline that defies logic without procedurally addressing the films. After all, WP:NACTOR is crystal clear: actors are notable (amongst others) if they have "had significant roles in multiple notable films". gidonb ( talk) 00:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
To be totally clear I'm adding only as a side note (!) that Young had significant roles also in the notable films Boobs in Arms and Girls of the Road. One of these is mentioned above. I'm concentrating however on her roles in The Wildcat of Tucson and Prairie Schooners because the female lead is so obviously a significant role. I'm trying to keep my argument simple. gidonb ( talk) 01:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train talk 07:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Dionne Rakeem

Dionne Rakeem (  | 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. The claim of her song "Sweeter than Wine" charting at 46th in the United Kingdom may be false as The Official Charts Company does not show anything about Rakeem or her song (not even in archives) ( source in article shows no entry). Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. No secondary sources can be found. The subject-specific guideline (WP:MUSICBIO) exists as secondary to WP:GNG and "meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." — Za wl 15:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep per WP:MUSICBIO#C2. Proof is available here.-- Laun chba ller 15:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is anyone going to address the MUSICBIO findings?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c ) ( m) 05:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A Train talk 07:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

WEBT (disambiguation)

WEBT (disambiguation) (  | 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 an ordinary, orphan, WP:2DABS page where disambiguation is not required. The primary topic has a hatnote to the only other use. De-PRODed by Patar knight who added a wiktionary reference to a non-English word. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 07:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:2DABS. This is to disambiguate Wikipedia articles, and is not a dictionary, I don't think the link to Wiktionary justifies a dab. Boleyn ( talk) 09:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Mark the train Discuss 09:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Mark the train Discuss 09:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Mark the train Discuss 09:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c ) ( m) 05:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. A Train talk 07:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Dheeraj Singh Moirangthem

Dheeraj Singh Moirangthem (  | 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 am sorry for doing this but these articles don't pass WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, and although the fact that India hosting the u-17 world cup is a great thing it does not make the individual players notable unless they pass the notability guidelines. Did not find the rational of why the PROD was removed convincing at all. Inter&anthro ( talk) 04:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Amarjit Singh Kiyam (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rahul Kannoly Praveen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Inter&anthro ( talk) 04:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Inter&anthro ( talk) 04:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ सुमित सिंह and सुमित सिंह: to answer your question youth team appearances are not considered notable because many players who play for their youth team do not go on to become professional. How many of the Indian u-17 team can you name from 10 years ago? @ Akhiljaxxn: there is no double standard, please read WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. I agree with both of you that there are problems in Wikipedia's notability guidelines and inherent biases, but these should be discussed in a constructive manner on places such as the WikiProject's talk page.
Trust me there is nothing I hate more than nominating articles for deletion, and it has happened to me too that article(s) which I put a lot of effort and time were deleted. If it were up to me I would never nominate articles for deletion. Unfortunately Wikipedia has policies and guidelines and we as editors have to follow them. There is still a lot of work to do on Indian football see here so please do not take this AFD personally and instead try to see it as a learning curve because we would all like you guys to stay and keep editing. If these articles happen to be deleted please remember all is not lost and you can always recreate them when they meet said guidelines. Inter&anthro ( talk) 18:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 13:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Camping (computing)

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

Unsourced. Possible hoax. Searches turned up absolutely nothing relevant. You'd think in a specialized field like this it would be widely covered but nothing relevant came up in either Google Books or Scholar, almost all of the results on a standard Google search (for terms such as "server camping") are about Camping (computer gaming) or some other topic. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 04:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 04:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that this topic fails the notability guideline. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 13:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Iqbal Unnisa

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

Clearly fails WP:BIO. NikolaiHo ☎️ 04:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, sadly. Our only source is a self-published book and web, scholar, and book searches found little else. Searching for her at unom.ac.in reveals that she only directed the institute for six months, and anyway WP:PROF#C6 is only for heads of whole universities — head of department is far too low an administrative position to be automatically notable. Single-digit citations for her work in Google scholar are too low for WP:PROF#C1 even in a low citation field. Her association with notorious self-promoter Florentin Smarandache doesn't help. I'm all for promoting the accomplishments of underrepresented groups in mathematics (in this case both women and people from less-developed nations, although calling India "less developed" in mathematics seems a little odd) but we should do so by writing about people with significant accomplishments who might otherwise have been overlooked, not by being indiscriminate about who we include. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per David Eppstein Fails WP:GNG and her h-index is clearly low for WP:PROF particularly WP:PROF#C1 and also fails WP:PROF#C6 as she headed only a department and only for 6 months and not the whole university and could not find adequate coverage to meet general notability guideline either. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 05:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I can find papers with 6 and 2 GS citations. Not enough for WP:Prof, even in the low cited field field of pure mathematics. It would be helpful if people who wrote such articles would create a GS profile for the subject. This would make it easier for examination at AfD. Xxanthippe ( talk) 06:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC). reply
Maybe I was thinking of ResearcherID. I have not tried with GS. Xxanthippe ( talk) 09:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC). reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 05:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Michael Opondo

Michael Opondo (  | 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. The organization he founded may be notable by itself, but notability is not inherited. REferences are all either self published or primary, or passing mentions. GigglesnortHotel ( talk) 17:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark ( talk) 03:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - passes WP:GNG. Good sources. BabbaQ ( talk) 14:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - most of the information inside the article cannot be corroborated by the sources provided. Some references are just landing pages of websites which is WP:SPAM. From my personal search I could not find any reliable references about the subject but those about the organization he founded. An article about the organization can be spun off this subject. Kagundu Talk To Me 15:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I took a look to many refs, but coudln't find in the sources evidence for his notability; some statements of his as a student, an article he co-authored, and refs to his personal website, and the website of the organization he has founded. —— Chalk19 ( talk) 07:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) J 947( c ) ( m) 05:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Georgia Glastris

Georgia Glastris (  | 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:Notability. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 03:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) NikolaiHo ☎️ 03:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

James Heilman

AfDs for this article:
James Heilman (  | 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 only content of this article is centred around James' Wikipedia involvement. Other than that, he is just another ER doctor. If it wasn't for his Wikipedia editing, there would be almost no content. If Wikipedia editing is reason for an article, why doesn't User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao have an article? For this reason, this article doesn't meet WP:BIO, and as previously mentioned, there is an issue of WP:BLP1E. There is a serious problem when over half an article is dedicated to his Wikipedia editing. NikolaiHo ☎️ 03:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • User:Nikolaiho, I think you misunderstand something pretty basic here: whatever someone's notability is based on (Wikipedia, gay porn, YouTubing, writing books on medieval studies) is irrelevant--what matters is what secondary sources have to say on it. I don't think old Ser Amantio has generated much coverage... Drmies ( talk) 03:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Ser Amantio may have even more coverage than Mr. Heilman. Try a Google query. NikolaiHo ☎️ 03:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Drmies: - you're right, I haven't. Three or four things, I think, nothing more. (Just ran a Google search on myself - ashamed as I am to admit that publicly - and I find that many of the "Steven Pruitt"s on the first page are not me.) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 03:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Ser Amantio di Nicolao, you are on Time magazines most influential people on the Internet, absolutely a living legend. Don't undercredit yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikolaiho ( talk • contribs) 03:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Am still searching for the gay porn, alas. Martinevans123 ( talk) 13:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Ser Amantio di Nicolao, I am sorry: I didn't know you were such a player! Wow! Drmies ( talk) 14:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Martinevans123: and @ Drmies: A hint: try the keywords "goat", "paintbrush", "Sebastopol", "Georges Braque roleplay", and "1923 Cadillac". That should get you somewhere interesting. Where, I don't know. Probably on an FBI watchlist somewhere. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 14:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Also, I think I should note that there is now an article about Ser Amantio di Nicolao (real name Steven Pruitt) which I created yesterday. Everymorning (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Flattered, I'm sure, but I'm not sure I'm well-enough sourced to withstand scrutiny. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 14:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Hook me up with citizenship and I won't PROD you. Drmies ( talk) 20:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that this player does not meet the relevant notability guidelines, cited in the nomination statement. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 13:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Craig Bearss

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

Unsourced BLP. External links are both broken and provide no information. Does not appear to meet WP:GRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH standards for inclusion. Ham tech person 02:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 07:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Fair Oaks Avenue (Pasadena, California)

Fair Oaks Avenue (Pasadena, California) (  | 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 notability asserted, tagged for sources since 2007. Deprodded after 7 day expiry. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to Popsicle stick as it would be a double redirect. If an article ever emerges at Popsicle stick then no prejudice against reviving this article as a redirect then. A Train talk 07:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Paddlepop stick

Paddlepop stick (  | 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 lacks notability. Meatsgains ( talk) 01:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 07:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The nominator is a newbie? 96.127.242.251 ( talk) 01:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Greenbörg, it would have been helpful if you had included a note in the edit summary or here on the AfD explaining why you struck out Mfarazbaig's comment. A Train talk 07:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

A Train It was my mistake so sorry for that. I struck out because he got blocked for sock puppetry. Greenbörg (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Reactions to the 2016 Lahore suicide bombing

AfDs for this article:
Reactions to the 2016 Lahore suicide bombing (  | 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 am revisiting this quote farm in light of a recent discussion on another "Reactions to..." article. The consensus was to delete -- "clearly" as the closer described it. I realize using other stuff is mostly frowned upon (and rightly so) but this negates editor opinion that there is "precedent" to keep these quote farms. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and loosely synthing routine reactions that weren't important enough for the actual article doesn't change that. I do not advocate for a merge because the article on the attack summarizes the world's condolences in an orderly manner. Really, there is no policy based reason to keep this: notability isn't inherited to the attack and individual reactions must be judged individually so WP:GNG does not apply either. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 00:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as not much to write about with limited sources. This is clearly a WP:QUOTEFARM and as per precedent set by recent discussion this is not much valuable on WP now. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Merge (selectively, the more notable ones) into 2016 Lahore suicide bombing. These "reactions" articles serve a purpose in "current event mode" (this directs the "reaction" news flow off of the main article) or in the case of truly mega events (which can have very large articles, in which case sub-articles make sense). In this case, the main article isn't very long (18K bytes) - and there is no need for a separate "reactions" article. Icewhiz ( talk) 14:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Looks like the most significant reactions are in the main article in any event - so I'm striking the merge vote, though it might be possible to selectively merge a few additional bits. Icewhiz ( talk) 14:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

*Keep & WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE - The previous AfD was closed just a month ago. What happened at AfD for other article has no business here. This easily passes WP:GNG. See: CBC News, Ottawa Citizen, CBC News, Catholic Herald, Daily Bruin, DAWN, Metro News, PCP. - Mfarazbaig ( talk) 16:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Mfarazbaig how do seperate reactions pass GNG; they must all be judge, well, separately. Anyways, my rationale quite thoroughly explains why these quote farms are not for the encyclopedia. I realize you are part of the Pakistan WikiProject but you must handle this case objectively. And please understand no rational admin will close this prematurely simply because you don't like the nomination. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 16:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply
====Advice on renominating====

When you do renominate, try to make a better nomination statement than was made last time. Address directly the issues that caused the participants to not be persuaded last time. Emphasize the issues that were not sufficiently considered last time.

Be warned that some consider renominations to be disruptive, or gaming. Don’t exacerbate this problem by badgering the participants in the new discussion.

Posted by Unscintillating ( talk) 00:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Unscintillating be warned, casting aspersions is just as disruptive as any illusionary scenario where I am supposedly trying to game any system. "Precedence" was the main point, as non-policy based as it is, by keep voters in the previous discussion. If you read my re-nomination statement, I address this and more -- quite thoroughly. This "advice" was not even marginally relevant to me, and I'm sorry but your comments at AFD have been head-scatchers as of late. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 00:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Bactiguard Wire Brass

Bactiguard Wire Brass (  | 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 and WP:BAND, created by what appears to be a WP:SPA. Searches turned up absolutely nothing. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 00:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 00:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 00:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that this player does not meet the football notability guideline – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 13:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Andy Reyes

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator based on an unsourced claim that the Costa Rican top flight is fully pro. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 00:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 00:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 07:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 07:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment WP:FPL neither lists the Costa Rican league as an FPL, nor as a non-FPL, meaning nobody could find a reliable source either way. If someone could find one either confirming or denying its professional status, that would be helpful not just for this AfD but going forward. I don't really have the time right now, but might later in the week. This is why AfD's run seven days. Smartyllama ( talk) 13:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - BLP about footballer who recently signed with Pachuca's youth side, who has played in a youth World Cup and one-and-one-half season in the Costa Rican top division. I can only find routine coverage (match reports and transfer news) with very limited exceptions. I don't know if the Costa Rican top division is fully-pro (which appears unlikely when you look at pictures of the "crowd" in league matches like this), but I don't see enough coverage of typical players (i.e., not "stars") participating in the league to justify an assumption of notability. Jogurney ( talk) 15:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 08:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that this player does not meet the football notability guideline. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 13:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Diego Nájera

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator based on a claim that the Andorran top flight is fully pro. This claim is unsupported and contradicted by sources at WP:FPL. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 00:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 00:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 08:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 08:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 08:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
I asked for a hand. A Train talk 20:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_October_10&oldid=1142617657"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE