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

The result was delete. However if anyone is able to confirm that enough of the print/unavailable sources are in-depth reliable sources, such that the article would pass GNG, come to my talk page and link this AfD and I'll restore. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply

EXodus

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

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

Entirely unsourced stub article created in 2008 with 29 edits since. -- Alex ^TW 02:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment There are several news in published magazines, but I was not able to find any review. Sources I found so far:

• Marshall, Martin (May 1989). "Macworld News, X Window Graphics on the Mac". Macworld. Vol. 6, no. 5. IDG Communications. pp. 109, 111. ISSN  0741-8647. News about version 1.0 (half page)
• Marshall, Martin (April 30, 1990). "UNIX News, White Pine Upgrades Exodus X Window Display Server for the Macintosh OS". InfoWorld. Vol. 12, no. 18. IDG. p. 38. ISSN  0199-6649. Short news about version 2.0 (1/8 page)
• Busse, Torsten (June 17, 1991). "Hardware, White Pine adds X Window extensions to Exodus 3.0". InfoWorld. Vol. 13, no. 24. IDG. p. 21. ISSN  0199-6649. Short news about version 3.0 (1/5 page)
• Welch, Nathalie (December 4, 1993). "Gateways, eXodus to boost performance of display servers". MacWEEK. Vol. 7, no. 15. Coastal Associates Publishing (Ziff-Davis). p. 18. ISSN  0892-8118. Short news about version 5.0 (1/5 page)
• "News/Networking, Pipeline, Shipping, White Pine Software Inc". InfoWorld. Vol. 16, no. 16. IDG. April 18, 1994. p. 47. ISSN  0199-6649. News about remote access add-on eXodus eXpress (short news only)
• "Networks, In brief, X-Windows Update". Macworld. Macworld Communications (IDG Communications). August 1994. p. 151. ISSN  0741-8647. News about remote access add-on eXodus eXpress (short news only, cca same as above)
• "Product Comparison, PC X-server software, Opening up the X files". InfoWorld. Vol. 18, no. 8. IDG. February 19, 1996. p. 76. ISSN  0199-6649. Mention only - reference for market share of various X-servers
• Rizzo, John (1999). "Chapter 17: Network Application Sharing & Thin Clients". integration : integrating your Macintosh with Windows 95/98 and Windows NT environments. Academic Press. pp. 537–538. ISBN  0-12-589325-6. One page, mentions features of version 7.0 and newer Pavlor ( talk) 20:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete The general notability guideline asks for coverage that is independent, significant, and in reliable sources. After having verified the list of references above, many entries have problems with the "significance" prong of that test (as implied by the multiple notes of "short"). Of these, only Marshall (1989) meets the GNG criteria. Marshall (1990), Busse (1991), Welch (1993), InfoWorld staff (1994), and MacWorld staff (1994) are all not significant, being little more than mere product update announcements. InfoWorld staff (1996) is not even that - just a passing mention of the software company. I was not able to verify Rizzo (1999), but Pavlor's description of it as a one page mention does not fill me with hope. One significant WP:RS does not meet WP:GNG and there is no applicable WP:SNG that would apply. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Reply to @ Dysklyver:'s relisting comment - there seems to have been a sort of edit conflict -- see the requested evaluation of sources in the !vote immediately prior to the relist. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:36, 27 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) 19:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Direct Entertainment

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

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

Little significant coverage in independent, reliable sources that suggests a pass of WP:NCORP. DrStrauss talk 10:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 10:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 10:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Unreferenced after eleven years (!) and no significant results found in any searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing ⁺⁺ 18:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Seems to be trying to assert notability via naming of clients and, in theory, the founder. The founder, Trevor Chowning, is likely a failure of our notability standards as well. I can't find any sources indicating this company is notable in any respect. Rather amazing it's lasted in this state as long as it has, but perhaps it's been under the radar for having no inbound mainspace links. So, yes, delete and perhaps listed Trevor Chowning for deletion as well. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 22:01, 23 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, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Netgables

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

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

From what I can tell, this is a clear fail of WP:NCORP. The references provided are mostly about one of the products of Netgables ( Saralweb), and personal profiles of its investors. I find no substantial coverage of Netgables itself, hence delete. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment No opinion on the sources yet but I just removed two unambiguously promotional sections from this article since the AfD was kicked off. Also note that Saralweb redirects to Netgables, so if there is enough coverage of the product maybe it would be better to move the article over the redirect. – filelakeshoe ( t / c)  22:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I'm open to a redirect/refocus to Saralweb, but new coverage seem extremely thin. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 22:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- a smallish private company; no indications of notability or significance. Sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. References as per op, fail WP:CORPDEPTH. -- HighKing ⁺⁺ 12:13, 26 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. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Holy Virgin Protection skete (Buena Vista Township)

Holy Virgin Protection skete (Buena Vista Township) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Can't find any in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable sources. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Holy Virgin Protection skete had such name only since 2015. Before that, it was a parish church. In 2007, the property of the parish became the object of legal proceedings. This was written in the media, including The Wall Street Journal [1], The Moscow Times [2], Kommersant [3], Novoye Russkoye Slovo [4] [5]. ~ Чръный человек ( talk) 05:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete I wasn't able to find any other source other than it's own website. Respectfully I do acknowledge the importance of religious communities, I do not think this passes WP:GNG. Randomeditor1000 ( talk) 19:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Until the fall of 2015, this skit was an ordinary parish church. ~ Чръный человек ( talk) 17:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• this one provide with these sourses:

• Holley, David. "Russian Orthodox Church Ends 80-Year Split." Los Angeles Times 17 May 2007.
• Santana, Rebecca, "Russian Church Battles for Future in NJ." USA Today 5 September 2007
• Sataline, Suzanne, "Cold War Lingers At Russian Church In New Jersey: Orthodox Dissidents Defy New Union With Moscow, Fearing Putin's Spies." The Wall Street Journal 18 July 2007 ~ Чръный человек ( talk) 18:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Rename to more common name, Sviato-Pokrovskiy Russian Orthodox Church, and create redirect. Coverage includes: The Washington Post [ [6]], USA Today [ [7]] and The Wall Street Journal [ [8]] TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

These references do not have the article's subject as their focus. Being mentioned in passing does not fulfill WP:GNG Ifnord ( talk) 19:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I feel the references have the "Sviato-Pokrovskiy Russian Orthodox Church" as the main focus... so the article's subject would have to be changed in addition to the title. I do agree that the "skete"/monastery aspect itself is not notable, but the church itself is. = paul2520 ( talk) 19:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Per WP:GNG:

Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

• Keep - rename, as per Timtempleton's [unsigned] comment above. See this archive.is copy to avoid subscription/paywall for WSJ post. I feel the three articles should absolutely be referenced, the photo captioned, and a little cleanup. The three references establish an interesting notability as a Cold War-era church with an interesting story to be told. = paul2520 ( talk) 19:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete, per nom, for failing WP:GNG. Ifnord ( talk) 19:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep  Sourcing is sufficient to show notability.  Unscintillating ( talk) 12:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment - As per WP:SUSTAINED, there was some limited coverage of this establishment for a very brief period during 2007. Before and since: nada. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:58, 26 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. Redirects at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Charlotte Lawrence

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

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

Non-notable model lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. Fails WP:N. reddogsix ( talk) 21:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Merge / Redirect to Bill Lawrence (TV producer)#Personal life, probably the most obvious target. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable teenaged model. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete a model who has not gained any major contracts or obvious media coverage, a few things but not enough, delete as a case of TOOSOON. Dysklyver 22:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Do both of you think that "Charlotte Lawrence" is an implausible redirect that is unlikely to ever be created? I don't see anything in WP:INVALIDBIO that says you must delete a topic that falls short of the guidelines. See WP:ATD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Fanpage having no RS. Models are not notable per se. Agricola44 ( talk) 18:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Here is a source confirming her relationship with a notable person. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• So what? INHERIT is not really justification for redirect, which I assume is what you're implying. This one is a delete. Agricola44 ( talk) 12:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC) reply

WP:ATD-R (which is part of the deletion policy) disagrees with you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Because this person has no real reason to be mentioned by WP, it seems to me that what you're saying implies that spouses, children, siblings, etc. of people described in WP should have redirects. I think that's nonsense. Agricola44 ( talk) 16:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Yes and WP:INVALIDBIO (part of the notability guidelines) says that can happen, giving Jason Allen Alexander and Brooklyn Beckham as examples. Similarly, consider The Electras. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Let me cut to the chase. I'm not changing my !vote and will be sitting out the rest of this AfD. Best, Agricola44 ( talk) 15:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC). reply

• Delete--I am not convinced by Ritchie's argument(s) about redirecting it.That would pretty much guarantee every sibling/ward/spouse/parent of a notable individual a Wiki-Redirect! Winged Blades of Godric ^{On leave} 17:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Subject has to create her own notability. Rogermx ( talk) 19:04, 26 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 deleted by Shirt58. ( non-admin closure) Sir Sputnik ( talk) 13:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Joshua Tibbetts

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

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

Concern was player fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG having never played in a fully professional league or in a senior international fixture. PROD was removed by article creator on the grounds that he may become the second choice goalkeeper if a loan spell ends for another player and may play in cup competitions, which is purely WP:CRYSTAL and does not solve original reason for deletion. Kosack ( talk) 21:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kosack ( talk) 21:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kosack ( talk) 21:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete (or convert to a draft article, pending an appearance for Peterborough). Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL at present. Eloquai ( talk) 22:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Clearly fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy ( talk) 22:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a competitive match between two clubs from fully professional leagues. LTFC 95 ( talk) 23:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete - per WP:G4. This article is not substantially different from the one deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Tibbetts. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 12:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Currently fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Can be recreated if he makes an appearance for Peterborough. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 13:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete - per Sir Sputnik. Inter&anthro ( talk) 03:12, 21 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, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

GlobalTranz

GlobalTranz (  | 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. Unextraordinary logistics company with no discernible third-party coverage not emanating from its own press releases. Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Seemingly non-notable logistics company that fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Nothing indicates the encyclopedic notability of this company as opposed to other logistics companies.-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 17:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete I see no evidence of notability in a brief search. Dysklyver 22:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing ⁺⁺ 12:08, 26 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Yasmin Scott

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

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

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

Declined PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO notability. References are trivial tabloid coverage, no major accomplishments to warrant an encyclopedia article. --Animalparty! ( talk) 18:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! ( talk) 18:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! ( talk) 18:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. --Animalparty! ( talk) 18:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep : The article should not be deleted as the content has been modified. She was was on the cover of People (magazine) in 2017 and also featured as its cover girl. also the person is on several media news websites like thesun.co.uk , mirror.co.uk, dailytelegraph.com.au, dailystar.co.au, IMDB , supported by various other sources.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4360808/naked-dating-couple-grope-sex-yasmin-scott-porn-star/

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm8338319/
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/naked-dating-contestant-yasmin-scott-11085146
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/sydney-confidential/raunching-naked-dating-couple-told-we-are-not-allowed-to-broadcast-sex/news-story/586f54b73db43fddf0ede33e8ff37a79
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/real-life/641169/KIIS-FM-Naked-date-boobs-touch-video-kyle-jackie-o-kiss-sex
-- Rashkeqamar ( talk) 19:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Rashkeqamar: I mean this in the nicest possible way, if you think a piece in The Sun entitled "Naked Dating star who groped and tried to bed blind date on live show exposed as a secret PORN STAR with rubber glove fetish and a very filthy offer" is a suitable source to use on a biography of a living person then you should probably avoid editing BLPs. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep It seems from the article that person concerned was on cover of Penthouse Australia Black Label in April 2016, which is quite significant as Penthouse is a huge brand. there is also mention of about 30 porn films, which is quite significant.-- Chutrandi ( talk) 19:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

That was this editor's 3rd edit on Wikipedia Atlantic306 ( talk) 22:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete does not pass WP:PORNBIO or WP:GNG. IMDb is not a reliable source because it is usergenerated and tabloid sources such as the Daily Star are also not considered reliable especially for biographies of living people, note the telegraph is the Australian tabloid not the UK broadsheet Atlantic306 ( talk) 22:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete as non notable porn actress, no evidence of notability, fails WP:PORNBIO & WP:GNG. – Davey2010 ^Talk 22:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Penthouse Australia magazine cover girl can't be ignored. Its not only IMDB, dailytelegraph is a big independent source. A look at other pornographic actress reveal that there are pages of multiple porn actress which are existing on Wikipedia but way little content, take for example- Angell Summers.-- Maithilityagi ( talk) 02:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

That was this editor's 5th edit on Wikipedia Atlantic306 ( talk) 22:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! ( talk) 00:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment: The People magazine mentioned by Rashkeqamar is an Australian magazine apparently unrelated to the American magazine linked in their vote. Trivialist ( talk) 10:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Single event - no lasting notability. Aoziwe ( talk) 13:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete No obvious BLP-compliant sources out there - a news search throws up a bunch of Daily Mail gossip pieces and a load of other trash. I think Rashkeqamar has managed to produce a list of the worst possible WP:BLPSOURCES-violating tabloids in the UK. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep In my opinion, for Porn actors, Penthouse, IMDB , Internet Adult Film Database and some other main stream articles are enough to prove its notability. I have seen enough number of articles on porn articles which exist on various wikipedia- be it English, French, Italian, etc. -- Merwadoin ( talk) 17:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Penthouse is the Australian edition of same Penthouse (magazine), and this is quite popular in Australia also. -- Rashkeqamar ( talk) 17:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC) striking second keep vote from this editor, only one allowed per editor Atlantic306 ( talk) 22:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment - This AFD seems to have attracted some editors with very few edits. One of those editors has only made two previous edits, and those were in July of last year. I don't want to accuse anyone of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry here, but this smells awfully fishy. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 19:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep A cursory glance over the Google reveals that the person concerned has worked for major pornographic production companies including Brazzers, Digital Sin, Reality Kings, Evil Angel (studio), Digital Playground and Fleshbot, within 2 years of her porn career, which is quite significant. For a pornographic actress to act in so many production houses , is a remarkable feat.-- Renpoiya ( talk) 02:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

That just says to me that she can't hold down a steady job. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

That was Renpoiya's 6th edit on Wikipedia Atlantic306 ( talk) 22:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep In my opinion, after analyzing this article with other pornographic actors' articles, there are sufficient independent sources to prove its notability. Adult Film Database and Internet Adult Film Database can give a very good idea of how notable a porn actor is in terms of number of films, and Yasmin Scott is fairly passing that thing with a number of films done for the biggest porn production house Brazzers.-- Rehmanbarua ( talk) 08:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)** reply
• Delete as failing WP:PORNBIO. Being in a lot of productions isn't one of the listed criteria and notability is not inherited by association. 331dot ( talk) 08:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep The article features her work in her life. She is twice Australian penthouse model, which is a big thing for an erotic model.
  

http://www.adventurefittravel.com/radio/item/657-72-yasmin-scott
Independent sources indicate she is a rising star from Australian porn industry.-- Rashkeqamar ( talk) 11:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC) Struck third keep vote from this editor Atlantic306 ( talk) 22:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

"Rising star" suggests she is not yet notable (see WP:TOOSOON). Please review the notability guidelines. 331dot ( talk) 12:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- not notable; WP:TOOSOON, if the subject ever will. Appearing in multiple productions is nothing special, and is not a basis for notability. Also, there seems to be a lot of SPA votes here. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete (and clean out that sock drawer). Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Mo legitimate assertion of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 12:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No real claim of passing WP:PORNBIO. Coverage comes from low quality tabloids concerning a single event. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:36, 26 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 (no prejudice against renomination). Essentially, those wanting to delete the article (aside from A Train) did not discuss the sources or mention searches for any other, merely saying "not notable" or "churn", while those wanting to keep mentioned sources. Additionally, nobody has edited the article during the AfD, which may have helped other voters come to a decision. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Skytap

Skytap (  | 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 and promotional. The awards are in niche categories, the references are PR or notices. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep per last discussion, and additional sources. Plenty of coverage from The Seattle Times too, which indicates notability. Sounder Bruce 01:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep per my comment in the first AfD. Plenty of coverage that is not PR or notices. -- Michig ( talk) 06:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep, I see sufficient coverage in reliable sources. The Seattle Times is not PR. Antrocent ( ♫♬) 20:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue that the Seattle Times is not a reliable source. Clearly it is, it's a major newspaper. That said, is the spirit of WP:GNG being met here? Are any of the articles from the Times talking about the societal impact of this company and its products? Is it truly notable? My bar for business notability is lower than most, I think, but the references for this article are all funding notices. What's the wider impact or significance of this company? I'll readily change my vote if somebody can point me to the article I've missed that discusses that. A Train ^talk 08:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply

See the first AfD. -- Michig ( talk) 18:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Michig, I've looked at all ten of the links you posted in the previous AfD. To my eye, those are all announcements of funding/new products or brief mentions in how-to books on a broader topic. I appreciate that it's a slightly subjective call, but none of that strikes me as "significant coverage" per WP:N. A Train ^talk 19:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, as none of the source cited are (per A Train) press releases, notices about the company's funding, or about a product. Nothing is discussed as to the actual impact of the article subject and its service, nor is a point made as to why Skytrap is different from other cloud computing companies.-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 17:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

We judge notability on the coverage that exists, not the sources that are cited. -- Michig ( talk) 18:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply

What does the existing coverage show in terms of notability? The sources cited do not contain any in-depth material on the company and only list announcements.-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 18:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete No indications of notability. None of the references in the Seattle Times are intellectually independent and are company announcements or business-as-usual articles. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing ⁺⁺ 18:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- strictly promotional and no indications of notability or significance. Sourcing fails WP:CORPDEPTH, and are mostly routine announcements or PR driven. No value to the project; wikipedia is not a free means of promotion. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete- non-notable and promotional. The sources presented are all the usual marketing churn. Reyk _YO! 06:58, 27 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 Kolkata Knight Riders. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric ^{On leave} 17:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Kolkata Knight Riders in 2018

Kolkata Knight Riders in 2018 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Procedural nomination. Previous AFD on this article was speedily closed because it was opened as an act of vandalism by a now indef-blocked user. However, X2bechaos ( talk · contribs) prodded the article in good faith with the rationale "The following article is more that just a stub. Kolkata Knight Riders already has a Wikipedia page, and this new page is unnecessary. The teams of the IPL have a page for each season, though the 2018 season hasn't started which renders this page useless. On top of that, the formatting and grammar is off on this page."

I'm bringing it back here for a proper discussion. For my part, I am neutral. — KuyaBriBri ^Talk 18:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

• Redirect to Kolkata Knight Riders for now - it's way too early for this. he league won't start until April so it's just too soon. It's also awful as it stands and needs to be started again by someone closer to the season beginning - the 2017 article was started at the end of February; that's more like it. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 22:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per BST. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per the comments above. This can be recreated when the player auction takes place - before then there is no prospect of anything but speculation being added here. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 14:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per the comments above. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:29, 26 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) 19:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Bryan Haczyk

Bryan Haczyk (  | 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 minor league player. The references on the page are either not independent as they are put out by us college hockey whom he played for or are routine coverage of signings. Could not find anything doing a search that went into significant detail on the player other than the one source already in the article but multiple are required so fails WP:GNG. Also fails WP:NHOCKEY. DJSasso ( talk) 18:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete yet another non-notable hockey player. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Minor leagues does not mean notability. Reywas92 ^Talk 22:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY and lacks multiple sources of significant, independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa ( talk) 15:35, 25 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) 19:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Project Trust

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

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

An advertorially toned page for an unremarkable charity. Significant RS coverage not found. The first AfD in 2016 closed as no consensus, due to low participation. The following sources were presented at the AfD: "significant coverage in The Glasgow Herald [9] and The Daily Telegraph [10]." I do not find them convincing as both articles are based on interviews with the org's executives. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 07:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete This is a PR release. Ofthe referencesat least some of them only include it among a group of alternatives. DGG ( talk ) 13:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete The article is so promotional that I would have nominated it for speedy deletion. Most of the references only mention the subject briefly,several of them as DGG says just including it in a list with other organisations. One of the references doesn't mention it at all. One is a blog. Just one is a newspaper report which mentions it several times, but even that does not amount to substantial coverage. The king of the sun ( talk) 16:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• DeleteReferences fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing ⁺⁺ 12:45, 26 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 08:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply

William J. Hadden

William J. Hadden (  | 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, WP:BIO and mayor pro tem of Greenville, North Carolina doesn't satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. Clarityfiend ( talk) 06:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I think that the article on William J. Hadden should stand as it is. Rev. Hadden was a noted local politician and citizen in Greenville, North Carolina, during a time of great social and racial upset and change in the 1960s and 1970s. While many white southern ministers, priests and rabbis were instrumental in ending local segregation and racial discrimination, their contributions are often not recognized or documented, especially on Wikipedia. There are many outside sources of information about Rev. Hadden and his life, but because they were mostly pre-Internet, it is difficult to identify him. However, his actions and accomplishments are readily mentioned in a number of books, newspapers and local publications, and these some of these are found on the Internet as well. The article counts 16 independent references to his life and actions, which is a comfortable amount of references of historical and current interest and notability, and thus cumulatively show "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Finally, Rev. Hadden was active in many fields, being at the same time a minister, local politician, television presenter and a community leader. It is difficult to confine his contributions to only one field, but his combined accomplishments resound in several different ones. He is a significant and notable person of interest to 20th century life in Eastern North Carolina, and a worthy addition to Wikpedia. Hadden ( talk) 19:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 04:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 04:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 04:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• User:Hadden, I agree with you, perhaps due to my soft spot for individuals who took part in the Civil Rights movement. However, I've just spent half an hour running searches, and I can't source this; also tried omitting the initial and using "Bill". Being included in an oral history archive does not support notability. Several of the old links dating back to your creation of the page are dead, and those sources are not familiar to me. @ Hadden: if you can repair those dead links, or find bluelinked sources, do ping me to take a second look. Otherwise, Delete. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- If he were just a pastor or a local politician, even both, I would say he was NN. However, his human rights work and being a founding member of the state Human Rights Commission is probably enough to lift him over the barrier into notability. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Hi, Peter, Where are you seeing that? I see that the Good Neighbor Council was founded at the state level]], and that Hadden was founding chair of the Greenville branch. He was also an elected member of the Greenville City Council. But Greenville is a smallish city,currently listed as the 10th largest city in N. Carolina, with a present pop. of ~90,000. As I said, I would love to change my iVote to keep. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Ran some more searches; frankly puzzled. Admittedly, small city newspapers rarely have good archives, still, I would expect to have been able to find an obituary for a civil rights figure of regional note who died in 1995. Perhaps in a church publication. Also, there are a lot of published memoirs and regional, local histories of the movement, is is possible that I am failing to find sources because he was refereed to by some name other than Bill and William? Hadden turns out to be a more common name than I had realized. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Reluctant delete The subject sounds like a wonderful person who did many great things but I agree with those editors above who have noted that the sources provided so far don't satisfy our standards for notability. ElKevbo ( talk) 03:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep A lot of borderline assertions of notability, charitably. His six terms on the Greenville City Council as a politician, civil rights figure as Good Neighbor Council Chair/Housing Authority, and religious ministries are not, on their own, sufficient, but I think the sum of the parts gives enough room to retain. Especially since the article is otherwise without glaring issues. LargelyRecyclable ( talk) 19:29, 26 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. A Train ^talk 08:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Kataka (film)

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

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

WP:TOOSOON. No indication as to whether the film will gather any lasting notability due to it not being made yet. Currently, it's just a plot and a cast list and is clearly here to promote the film as it comes out in 8 days. DrStrauss talk 22:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mark the train ^Discuss 09:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mark the train ^Discuss 09:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete The film has been released now, but a I believe it fails WP:GNG, as all the sources are related to films/celebrity gossip. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:18, 26 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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Jillian Shea Spaeder

Jillian Shea Spaeder (  | 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 individual who fails WP:NACTOR and WP:MUSICBIO. The article subject has yet to accrue the significant role(s) and cultural influence required by Wikipedia's notability standards, and has not produced any notable music. Sourcing is also an issue, as a search for the article subject does not turn up any in-depth reliable sources. SamHolt6 ( talk) 16:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 16:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Note There is a "repeatedly created" template on the page. Prior deletions ere G6 for a move and a ProD, and thus a soft deletion. Don't see salt as warranted and subject may one day prove notable. Cheers, Dlohcierekim ( talk) 16:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:GNG , WP:NACTOR and WP:MUSICBIO.Subject started in 2015 and is upcoming in her career a case of WP:TOOSOON at best not notable currently. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 18:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete not enough to show notability, espeically for a 15-year-old. I think we should double down on privacy and BLP protections for minors. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:19, 23 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. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Sawyer Gaffney

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

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

BLP about an amateur footballer who played 14 minutes in a single United Soccer League match on an academy (non-professional) contract more than one year ago. Although there is concensus that the USL is a fully-pro league, his substitute's appearance was as an amateur and we have a long-standing consensus that a very minimal amount of play such as this doesn't meet the spirit of WP:NFOOTBALL. Also, although I found one decent article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, the other coverage of this footballer is routine and doesn't come close to passing WP:GNG. A PROD was removed on the grounds that the article satisfies NFOOTBALL, but I don't believe that is accurate (particularly in spirit). Jogurney ( talk) 15:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney ( talk) 15:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep passes WP:FOOTY and the subject is 20 years and just made his debut and see no reason in deleting it after he has made his debut and is currently playing. SNGs including WP:FOOTY exist to provide for the inclusion of certain defined subjects that cannot immediately be shown to pass GNG. An SNG provides for a presumption of notability, not a presumption of non-notability An SNG cannot be used to exclude/delete an article when the subject passes GNG, but the reverse is patently absurd because that would negate the entire reason for the existence of SNGs particularly for a player currently playing and only 20 years old. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 16:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I believe this is a unique situation where a footballer who is an amateur played in a "fully-pro league." Also, we have consistently determined that NFOOTBALL should be applied on a common sense basis when a footballer so narrowly crosses the bright-line (most recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Al-Khethiri and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wouter Soomer). Note that this footballer hasn't begun a professional career at this point, so to say he "is currently playing" is misleading. Like most amateur footballers, we have no reason to believe he will ever sign a professional contract until the point that it actually happens. Jogurney ( talk) 17:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Question Isn't the second tier a semi-pro league? Wouldn't he fail NFooty? Govvy ( talk) 22:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The USL is listed at WP:FPL. I'm skeptical (why does a fully-pro league allow amateurs to participate in matches?), but that's a discussion for the Talk page at FPL. Jogurney ( talk) 14:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Show Cause Did my own search and only good source I found was this - [11]. Since they player is a recent player, barely meets the SNG, and plays in an English-speaking country, I think it's reasonable to ask to see sources as opposed to just presuming they exist since they will take a while to find. RonSigPi ( talk) 00:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Reply Seriously is that all you got to go on? If that was the case I would also have a footy article on here for playing for Hatfield Town! But as it stands, the article fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage. Govvy ( talk) 10:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Govvy, what? I just said we should need to see sources and not just presume. That is why I said show cause - subject meets the SNG, but let's not just presume sources exist, but lets actually make an effort to find them since he is an English-speaking based player that is recent so should have a number of sources. I found one article, so that is a start. If we find some more, then I will say keep. If not, then I will say delete. I tried and showed what I could. If nothing more is produced, then its pretty clear we delete. Did you not understand what I said or understand what show cause means? RonSigPi ( talk) 20:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

@ RonSigPi: SNG? That's just a redirect, are you referring to GNG? He still fails and also the club seems to operate as semi-pro and doesn't sound like they operate full professional. Govvy ( talk) 20:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

No, referring to WP:NFOOTY. He meets it. But it is just a guideline. Considering the reasons I gave, I think we need to show the subject meets GNG. As of now, with only the one source I found, subject does not. RonSigPi ( talk) 22:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

When did you say that? And I am not even sure Richmond Kickers are operating as a fully pro club, if anything it sounds like they operate in a semi-pro format and if that's the case and some evidence points towards that there are a number of clubs in the second tier of US football operating in this format brings to front that tier two is not truly a professional league, there for he would fail NFooty. Also, are you Pharaoh of the Wizards? Govvy ( talk) 10:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Govvy ??? No, I am not Pharaoh of the Wizards. Please explain that logic. Pharaoh of the Wizards said keep. I said we need to find sources, as of now we have not found them, so delete until it is shown otherwise. Why would you think the same editor would give a first comment for keep and a second one for delete? RonSigPi ( talk) 12:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment SNG including WP:FOOTY, WP:NCRIC, WP:NHOCKEY , WP:NBASKETBALL are meant for this purpose exist to provide for the inclusion of certain defined subjects for example just after making there debut and the threshold is also Have appeared in one game is clearly mentioned in all SNG a Football , basketball ,Hockey or Cricket player will not immediately pass WP: GNG after appearing in just in one game in all cases.They are meant to allow a grace period to meet GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 13:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I still don't understand why you use SNG that jumps to the CAT, NFooty is there to cover the player, GNG is the primary guideline above it. You only have to define those two elements to pass of fail! It's been pretty straight forward, I question if the second devision is truly pro, if not, then the player fails NFooty. The article still fails GNG!. Right now, because I question the legitimacy of the second div being fully pro. That in turns leads me to *delete the player article, which currently is failing GNG. Govvy ( talk) 23:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails WP:GNG, and plenty of past AFD consensus that barely, technically passing WP:NFOOTBALL isn't enough. Giant Snowman 12:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment Sawyer Gaffney is a come up through the Club's academy Richmond United’s USSF Development Academy player not a amateur .Every major WP:FPL club has Football academy including Man U ,Real Madrid players coming through clubs ranks are not amateurs. AFD have shown consensus that young players still involved in NFOOTY or other SNG passing competitions are notable despite low numbers of appearance as it is presumed they will make further FPL appearances and is the case in other sports that is why the threshold is appeared in Have appeared in one game in all SNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 16:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • That's not true. Read the source I added to the article - he was an amateur when he made that appearance for Richmond Kickers because otherwise he would have lost eligibility to play college soccer. Jogurney ( talk) 14:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• ReplyThe Legal terms of the contract are irrelevant as far as notability is concerned they apparently been modified to allow him to play for Davidson College for his collegiate career.The USL article do not explicitly state he signed an amateur contact ,but he signed a contact with a professional football club .Now players even sign contacts on pay-as-you-play deal with them getting Zero if they do not play Owen Hargreaves and Micheal Owen .The terms and salary are irrelevant. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 21:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - one appearance (to technically meet NFOOTY) is not enough when he comprehensively fails GNG. Some COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Oscar Otazu, Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Aleksandr Salimov, Andrei Semenchuk, Artyom Dubovsky, Cosmos Munegabe, Marios Antoniades, Scott Sinclair, Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer, Matheus Eccard, Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Metodija Stepanovski, Linas Klimavičius, Takumi Ogawa, Nicky Fish and Andrei Nițu, amongst others. Fenix down ( talk) 19:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails the general notability guidelines. The special guidelines exist mainly for cases where sources might be hard to find online. Present soccer players in the US are not such a case. If the sources are not identified, it is safe to assume they do not exist. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:09, 23 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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Jeakson Singh Thounaojam

Jeakson Singh Thounaojam (  | 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:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. PROD rejected as he apparently does pass GNG but I don't think he does. ArsenalFan700 ( talk) 15:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete WP:TOOSOON. fails subject specific guidelines, specifically WP:NFOOTBALL which specifically excludes youth football as inherently notable. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE and per WP:ANYBIO does not indicate he has made widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record of football. Club Oranje ^T 21:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Govvy ( talk) 21:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amine Gouiri is on a similar subject if anyone wants to comment there too. Cheers, Number 5 7 08:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Number 57: Amiri is completely different case. Agree that Jeakson Singh should be deleted though.
• Delete - doesn't pass WP:GNG nor WP:FOOTY.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 16:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - far, far WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, there is a good amount of coverage but it is all centered around the goal he scored in the u-17 world cup, and not about the subject himself so fails WP:BLP1E. Inter&anthro ( talk) 23:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 15:17, 22 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) 20:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per all above points Spiderone 22:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - WP:TOOSOON. Only claim to fame right now is the goal he has scored. Coderzombie ( talk) 04:22, 26 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) 19:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Darius Eglynas

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

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

Unable to find significant coverage to meet GNG, although admittedly language could be a barrier. There is no SNG for bodybuilders but not sure placing 5th in World Fitness Federation would qualify for notability. J04n( talk page) 14:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n( talk page) 14:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. J04n( talk page) 14:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. J04n( talk page) 14:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete since there is SNG, WP:ATH applies generally. I could not find multiple non-trivial articles about the athlete. Therefore, it fails to be notable and should be deleted. Randomeditor1000 ( talk) 17:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete, only sources I could find are mentions about results in competitions ( [12], [13], [14]), couldn't find any comprehensive coverage to support notability. Respublik ( talk) 03:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete nothing exists that adds up to passing the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:51, 21 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. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 14:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC) reply

WWE Byte This!

WWE Byte This! (  | 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 non-notable web series based on WWE. Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia, not a collect of WWE trivia. WP:BEFORE shows nothing but internet chatter, unreliable sources and press releases. As it claims to be "considered as the flagship Internet program of WWE" it could maybe be merged with WWE. Dysklyver 21:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete The only references are an editorial, a forum thread, and an opinionated YouTube video (opinions not being bad, but explaining why something is underrated doesn't make it notable). Looks like a lack of reliable sources was also the original reason for deletion. If the people who have worked on the article ( Thebigs2update and 1beginsock1, which are both blocked for being sock puppets) find reliable sources, I'd suggest adding them to the pages of the show's hosts... Todd Grisham already has a line mentioning the show. = paul2520 ( talk) 16:15, 19 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. nom-withdraw (non-admin closure) Dysklyver 14:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

New Georgia (Political party)

New Georgia (Political party) (  | 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 can't see this passing WP:GNG, this party has merged with some others in 2016, [15] so perhaps this article could be merged into something more relevant. Dysklyver 21:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep, clearly notable in Georgia, see e.g. this TV news item. They haven't merged, they have tackled one election in a cartel or shared list but are clearly an independent party led by a notable person. He is a major candidate for the Tbilisi mayoral elections of this month, where again the party has joined forces with another party but clearly still uses its own name (see e.g. this. Please consider that these are only sources in English, sources in Georgian are bound to be much more plentiful but hard to search for me. Fram ( talk) 07:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Also there is the source I found ^ that makes three, If they are still a separate party then that ought to be enough. Dysklyver 08:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:27, 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 speedily deleted by User:Phantomsteve. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Biocrates Life Sciences AG

Biocrates Life Sciences AG (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Seemingly non-notable company that fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. A search for the article subject turned up coverage, but only in sites such as Prnewswire that fail WP:RS or that only list what the article subject is and not why it is significantly notable. In short, no in depth coverage. SamHolt6 ( talk) 14:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:35, 19 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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Allana Lim

Allana Lim (  | 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:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 14:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete does not meet the notability requirements for basketball players. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Playing on the Philippines national team is not inherently notable per WP:NHOOPS. Without enough sources, it fails WP:WHYN as we are unable to "... actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic."— Bagumba ( talk) 08:40, 22 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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Arcata Interfaith Gospel Choir

Arcata Interfaith Gospel Choir (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Local group with local coverage, no recording contract or hits, fails WP:Band Rogermx ( talk) 20:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:55, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Mala Saasu Havi

Mala Saasu Havi (  | 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:NTV and WP:GNG. Little in the way of significant reviews, mostly just YouTube videos and unreliable cruft sources. DrStrauss talk 22:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• The spelling " Mala Sasu Havi" seems to be a more common Roman alphabet transcription. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 12:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:57, 20 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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards

Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

What reliable sources have written anything of substance about this organization? MrBill3 ( talk) 13:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep, while the practices of chiropractic are questionable, this is an organization of note that is similar to the Federation of State Medical Boards for physicians or akin to AASHTO for transportation officials. It's purpose is for coordination of standards. Unfortunately the article isn't well written and cited so that may need some cleanup. https://doh.sd.gov/boards/chiropractic/education.aspx, https://www.chirobase.org/05RB/AHCPR/05.html. Randomeditor1000 ( talk) 20:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I just hadn't found significant coverage of this organization in secondary sources. The first link you give doesn't actually provide any coverage, only states they use a form provided by this organization for continuing ed. The second link actually does provide some coverage and gives a ref (Peterson D, Wiese G. Chiropractic: An Illustrated History. St. Louis, MO: Mosby Year Book, 1995:196-98, 203-5) that may be useful in rewriting the article as an encyclopedic entry. Still haven't seen solid establishment of notability. Thanks for the input. MrBill3 ( talk) 02:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• delete -- The content is cited to the org itself; does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. The content is strictly WP:PROMO, including:

• "The annual conference and district meetings provide an opportunity for a healthy exchange of ideas and viewpoints between member boards, as well as unified adoption of resolutions protecting the profession's examining regulatory standards and ultimately the consumer public!"

K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep I wish to withdraw my nomination for deletion. While the article is pure puffery as written and not properly sourced, it seems this organization is a major established authority whose publications are considered appropriate for the basis of peer reviewed research. While difficult to find sources that discuss the organization directly, it is heavily referenced for data. MrBill3 ( talk) 04:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Hey MrBill, this is an article on my list of ones to work on. I agree it's quite bad which is why I marked it as an article to work on with WP:CHIRO, but true to your words it's hard to figure out a new approach. I've actually reached out to the org already a few weeks ago asking if they could share their history, etc (from a published text or elsewhere) so I could include some good references for the page. Just responding here to let you know i'll keep the rest of the comments on this AfD in mind too when I attempt to improve it! SEMMENDINGER ( talk) 13:59, 20 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 New Brunswick, New Jersey. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

New Brunswick, New Jersey music scene

New Brunswick, New Jersey music scene (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability for topic not established in references, which are mostly local and do not assert the notability of subject. Quick search of topic for new references does not bring back anything to show city's music scene is particularly significant. Suggest merging to main city article, if anything. CutOffTies ( talk) 22:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Merge with New Brunswick, New Jersey as the nom suggests, which seems a reasonable way of avoiding content being lost. Dysklyver 19:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Merge with New Brunswick, New Jersey#Music. I agree with the above editors that a merge seems appropriate.  gongshow   talk  01:18, 25 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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Christopher Mirasolo

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

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

This article is about a convicted sex offender who was (shockingly) granted joint custody of his son. It is entirely WP:TOOSOON to know if this will become a case of lasting encyclopedic significance, but I highly doubt it. As it stands, this article is the perfect textbook example of WP:ONEEVENT; all of the references in the article were published within a single 48-hour window. We'll almost certainly never hear of the subject again and there's no potential for an encyclopedic article here. A Train ^talk 10:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I think A Train's comment, "We'll almost certainly never hear of the subject again" says it all. It is the event that briefly made it into the news anyway, not really the individual. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 12:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per BLP1E. 1E does apply since the coverage of his crimes wouldn't get past WP:PERP. Heinious as it was, his previous crime was not notable. The only reason there's coverage outside of his local area is this..... one event. Niteshift36 ( talk) 14:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. per WP:TOOSOON. Note coverage extends for 10 days (from 9 Oct to today). BPL1E doesn't apply (he's known for a number of separate sex convictions, and the custody). Nor am I sure that we'll never hear about him again as such a miscarriage of justice has a tendency to work itself into future references. However, as coverage is focused on the current (already reversed) judicial error (though the coverage does extend to cover the sex convictions) - we don't see WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. WP:RAPID would apply to the judicial error itself (if an article is created on it), and not on the BLP. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete This is a major example of recentism. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:46, 21 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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Di Loh Di

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No evidence of notability per WP:NFILM. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 09:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 09:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 09:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails WP:GNG. Tried to look online for citations but only got a couple of YouTube videos, and even then I don't know if they even pertain to the same film. Inter&anthro ( talk) 03:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - can't find any reviews, articles, info on actors or anything to suggest notability Spiderone 22:27, 24 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 Madlib. (non-admin closure) f e minist 13:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Madlib Invazion

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

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

Per source searches, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Madlib, perhaps? He's definitely notable even if the label is not (yet). A Train ^talk 10:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Madlib, where it is discussed. -- Michig ( talk) 16:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment – A redirect is fine by me. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 26 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. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Boa Vista Music

Boa Vista Music (  | 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:CORPDEPTH, as per source searches. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. No useful redirect target and no sources found in a search. A Train ^talk 10:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing ⁺⁺ 12:08, 26 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. Jeez, what a mess. The sole registered user arguing to keep, ProfessorClaudele does not understand WP:NFILM. However, neither does the nominator, Shearonink, who is attempting to rebut arguments with stuff like the Christianity Today review...that was a 2-star review out of a possible 4. The critical reception of a film has no bearing on its notability, or else we wouldn't have an article for The Happening. However, there are enough regulars agreeing with some of the deletion argument to form a consensus.

ProfessorClaudele, just because there does not appear to be a consensus to keep this article doesn't mean that you can't merge the most significant information to Aimee_Semple_McPherson#Works_about_McPherson to support a short-but-meaty paragraph over there. If you would like me to reproduce the article into your userspace to facilitate that just let me know. A Train ^talk 08:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Aimee Semple McPherson (film)

Aimee Semple McPherson (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)

Fails WP:NFILM. Fails WP:NFOE (*was not widely distributed, *has not received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics, *not historically notable [no publication of at least two non-trivial articles 5 years after release], *has not received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking, etc.). Fails WP:NFSOURCES (no significant coverage). Shearonink ( talk) 03:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shearonink ( talk) 18:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete does not meet notability guidelines for films. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Do not Delete Was distributed widely in (Partial list) Blockbuster stores, on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Netflix under new title "Sister Aimee: The Aimee Semple McPherson Story" Has been mentioned in mainstream newspapers more than other films with articles on Wikipedia. It is the first feature dramatic article on a major historical figure in Pentecostalism.

Being the first film about some particular segment of social history does not in and of itself make a film notable. Shearonink ( talk) 01:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Do not Delete It was reviewed in the Moviehound Golden Retriever Movie book, in Charisma and Christianity Today leading magazines in the Christian world, and on Hollywood Jesus. Religious discrimination should not be a factor in deleting a film that is more notable than many others in Wikipedia. The film is the first dramatic film about a woman who pioneered her own denomination and was a major Hollywood and religious figure in the 20th century in Los Angeles. The following articles in the press (partial list)mention the film: East Valley Tribune: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/get_out/finding-sister-aimee/article_22e6445a-2158-54db-a716-d79178c7df9d.html Pittsburgh Post Gazette: http://www.post-gazette.com/ae/movies/2008/05/04/Rev-Rossi-back-in-news-as-Hollywood-success-story/stories/200805040255 The film was nominated for Best Feature in Milan, Italy at the Sabaoth Film Festival. Thanks, Professor Claudele. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfessorClaudele ( talk • contribs) 06:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment:

Being distributed on various platforms means nothing regarding Notability for film.

• As to Amazon...Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #135,990 in Movies & TV.
• As to Netflix....only available on DVD, not available for streaming.

Having passing mentions in various articles means nothing as to notability. The film's coverage in media mentioned above -

• East Valley Tribune presently has a circulation of 140,000, in 2005 (ten years ago) I would suppose the # was lower.
• The Pgh Post-Gazette is an article mostly about the producer and not about the film itself.

As to the Best Feature Nomination at the Sabaoth Film Festival...what year? any independent confirmation? Any stats on this film festival? Does Variety or Backstage or London Times or any major media or entertainment journalist report on it? (in other words, how influential is this fest...) And, oh, btw, don't try to find any info out on the Sabaoth Fest's website, it seems to possibly have been hacked - got a malware warning.

• As to the Christianity Today review...that was a 2-star review out of a possible 4.
• As to Ref #1....why is that ref even in there? The article is a profile of Kathie Lee Gifford's Broadway production and contains a mere mention of the movie - it only serves to date the movie to 2006, it is not in-depth.
• WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST and asserting "religious discrimination" does not help to bolster this movie's notability.
• This movie is not the first about Aimee Semple McPherson, that would be 1976's "The Disappearance of Aimee", a movie which starred 2 Academy Award winners - Bette Davis and Faye Dunaway - and which was directed by Michael Harvey, an Academy-Award nominated film director.

This film, on its own merits, fails every aspect of notability. Some of the content could possibly be merged into Rossi's article but keeping in mind Wikipedia's guidelines for notability I remain convinced that this article should be deleted. Shearonink ( talk) 19:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment: Shearonink (UTC) negates her own flawed arguments for deletion by contradictory statements. For example, in her first post she argues that the film "was not widely distributed." When this falsehood was refuted with information that the film was distributed on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Netflix, etc... she argues the opposite point in her second post above that being widely distributed "means nothing." And then adds that the film was distributed on DVD on Netflix, but not streaming? Seriously? A second example of the self-contradictory logic in this request is in her first post she cites a lack of reviews. Then when reviews are presented, she replies that Christianity Today's review was "two stars out of four." So the standard is always altered in favor of a confirmation bias towards deletion, rather than an internal consistency of argument with objectivity. A third example of the flawed and inconsistent logic is when her first post mentions a lack of articles from notable newspapers, when articles are cited, she says, yes but the article covers Rossi and mentions the film without focusing exclusively on the film. To any objective observer, one can see the lines are drawn then erased and redrawn. Above a false claim is made that "The Disappearance of Aimee" was the first film of Aimee Semple McPherson's life, which was a TV presentation focused solely on the dramatization of the 1927 morals trial of McPherson. Rossi's film is the first feature biographical film covering her entire life from 1912-1944. Do not Delete Additionally, Wikipedia rules governing deletion state clearly: The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: Point 3 The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. The screening at Milan film festival Saboath was in 2011, 5 years after its release. Link: http://celebritypictures.wiki/celebrity/744302/748408 The question is asked if Backstage has reported on the film. The article on the film itself has a link to a Backstage article that talks about the film and Rossi's artistic integrity in refusing money to alter the truth of his film.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfessorClaudele ( talk • contribs) 08:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Being "widely distributed" is meaningless without some context. How many downloads were there? How many DVDs were sold? How many screenings were sold-out? etc.

It isn't up to any single editor for deletion or inclusion - the only thing that matters here is editorial consensus, what does the interested and commenting editorial community have to say regarding the film's notability and depending on Wikipedia's guidelines for those thoughts.

Re: "Milan Sabaoth Film Festival" - the issue here is whether or not this particular film festival is noteworthy or notable in and of itself. There are literally thousands upon thousands upon thousands of film festivals all over the world - there are 36 different ones listed at Wikipedia's own article about Italian film festivals. I am not casting aspersions upon the Sabaoth Film Festival - I just haven't seen proof that this is a major/meaningful film festival. Some festivals are meaningful and some of them are a way for promoters to take filmmakers' money (Google "film festivals scam" and you'll see what I mean.) My point is that having an award or having a screening at any single film festival does not in and of itself prove notability - anyone can put on what they call a film festival. My only concern is if this festival has received any coverage in industry press, or in any other media - other than its own press releases or its own website.

Re: the celebritypictures linkage... It's a photo. With little context.

The Backstage article is about an actor (not affiliated with the Aimee Semple McPherson film), mentions Mr. Rossi in passing and has some interview bits from him but to me does not bolster claims about the film's notability.

Anyway, my thoughts are still for Delete. Shearonink ( talk) 19:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Film mentioned in Ministries today (Dec. 2005), Film Threat magazine (2006), Charisma Magazine (October, 2005), East Valley Tribune (August 27, 2005) Hollywood Reporter and Variety production listings (2004-2005), InMag (Spring, 2005), Hollywood Jesus (2005), imdb.com, ZReview, movietome.com, and other publications cited on reviews and links at aimeesemplemcphersonmovie.com. This is the only feature dramatic film to explore Aimee McPherson's significance to evangelism and the history of Los Angeles. To delete is to miss the larger issues of the work.

Its at imdb The film has a few name actors in it, such as Rance Howard, father of Ron Howard. Cast members such as Rance Howard, Kiera Chaplin (granddaughter of Charlie Chaplin), Carl Ballantine, Richard Rossi, and the other lead Mimi Michaels who portrays Aimee Semple McPherson have their own Wikipedia pages. So in addition to other reasons, it's at IMDb, it's got a notable actor, a notable actor, a notable actor, a notable actor, a notable actor it's reviewed here and here.

It was apparently noteworthy enough to the SAG, Screen Actors Guild to have a special screening there. (See above review at Hollywood Jesus)

• Keep per IMDb, SAG, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfessorClaudele ( talk • contribs) 06:5917 October 2017 (UTC)

ProfessorClaudele - Please sign your posts on Wikipedia's talkpages. At the end of your post is where you put the four tildes -> ~~~~ and WP will automatically sign for you.

A "special SAG screening" only means that there were SAG members in the movie and that it was screened at their union's theater. It does not necessarily convey aspects of notability to have a movie "screened at SAG". SAG (then) and SAG-AFTRA (now) probably screens hundreds of movies in a year - it's a simple courtesy to their members. The HollywoodJesus.com review also mentions that "there are no plans as of yet for a theatrical release". How can a movie that never received a theatrical release, regardless of its good intentions, be considered notable especially considering the timeframe of 2004/5/6.

Being listed at IMDb in and of itself does not convey notability. There are over 382,000 features listed at IMDb, over 1 million dramas, 694,485 shorts...etc. ( see [16]). Besides, per WP:RS/IMDB IMDb is not considered a reliable source since it is user-generated + the WP essay WP:CITEIMDB + WP:EL/P#IMDb. Shearonink ( talk) 22:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

The SAG screening was not just a screening of a film at their theater. It was chosen to be part of that years SAG Conversations for notable films and actors. From SAG website: "The Conversations program offers free screenings followed by inspiring Q&As with leading actors and casts, as well as Career Retrospectives with preeminent actors who explore the process and profession with an audience of fellow artists. Conversations focus on personal experiences and artistic influences that inform and shape careers; discuss current and past projects; share valuable insights into the craft and industry; and preserve creative legacies." Here is a link to that event, SAG Conversations honoring the film with not just a screening, but a discussion by the filmmaker and some cast and crew taking questions from the audience of SAG union members: https://members.sagfoundation.org/events/550 ProfessorClaudele ( talk) 06:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

For future posts it would be helpful if your statements asserting your claims of notability also had their references/sources posted with them when you first make these statements. You stated the movie "had a SAG screening" but neglected initially to also provide a cite as well as to fully describe the event. Shearonink ( talk) 06:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM. Being available on Amazon is not evidence of "wide distribution", and in any case, the release wasn't accompanied by "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics". Betty Logan ( talk) 19:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - the "keep" proponent hasn't offered any rationale grounded in Wikipedia policies or guidelines why this article should be kept. The strongest argument, to me, seems to be the full-length review in Christianity Today, but this still fails to satisfy the WP:NFILM criterion of having "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics". ~ Anachronist ( talk) 21:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep "keep" proponent offers rationale grounded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines why this article should be kept, satisfying the WP:NFILM criterion of having "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics".. This film in addition to the Christianity Today review, is reviewed here by Ted Baer at Movieguide (full length review): https://www.movieguide.org/reviews/aimee-semple-mcpherson.html and again here by Chris Gore at Film Threat: http://filmthreat.com/uncategorized/aimee-semple-mcpherson/ ProfessorClaudele ( talk • contribs) 12:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  I removed your lengthy excerpts; we can read the links. These are nationally known critics? There isn't even a byline on either of those articles. Also, I have struck out your first "keep" vote above. Only one vote per user, please. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 17:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment. There have been other notable films about Pentacostalism, like Marjoe (which won an Academy Award for Best Documentary), Robert Duvall's The Apostle,
  

- the God's Generals series UPDATE: SORRY, MY mistake, I looked at the BOOKS (which are at #46,491 in Books on Amazon) Shearonink ( talk) 02:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC) - reply

but maybe being the first "based on a true story"/somewhat-biographical film about a "major historical figure in Pentecostalism" doesn't mean that the project itself is necessarily notable. Shearonink ( talk) 01:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep The two reviews above are nationally known, Ted Baer writes reviews for his site Movie Guide and Chris Gore for Film Threat. 76.175.21.114 ( talk) 07:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  This commenter clearly has a conflict of interest, and based on contribution history, is probably Richard Rossi, the director of the film we're discussing. If you have a COI, you should disclose it. I also don't see anywhere that says Ted Baehr wrote this review, or that Chris Gore wrote this review (it was more likely one of the staff). Both may as well have been written by anonymous authors. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 18:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC) reply

No COI, I do follow Mr. Rossi's work and story as a native Pittsburgher who finds it interesting as a life trajectory of someone native to my hometown. I wouldn't want to stoop to accusations of COI on the other side, but this thread does seem to set up arbitrary judgments against this film, then when it is demonstrated the film meets the criteria the interpretation of the rules are modified in subsequent posts as has been mentioned before and the criteria changed. The application does seem to be slanted unfairly with a COI against Rossi and the film, by those trying to delete. Most recently 'God's Generals' is cited as an important Pentecostal film, which has unlike Rossi's film, not screened anywhere, not been reviewed, and is a a video of a disgraced minister who was found to be sexually involved with a young male youth worker, just talking into the camera as a talking head about people like Aimee Semple McPherson, and is not a feature dramatic film anywhere near Rossi's work from any objective measure. 76.175.21.114 ( talk) 23:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment: Dude...seriously, step back and don't mischaracterize other editors' statements. And, if you really don't want to stoop?... then don't. Let me lay it out for you...there have been other notable productions about pentecostal subjects (I've corrected my mistake on God's Generals above). That clear enough? And stop with the mudslinging, it doesn't help your cause. Shearonink ( talk) 02:55, 24 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 William Guilfoyle. (non-admin closure) f e minist 12:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Michael Guilfoyle

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

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

A7 declined, which is reasonable, but this article nonetheless provides no basis for notability outside of the local vicinity. CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Merge to William Guilfoyle, where there'll be just enough in the way of RS to justify a sentence about William's father. The local historian who wrote the blue plaque account has done a sterling job of inferring Guilfoyle's life from limited evidence (we'd certainly call it WP:OR if he'd done it here), but it doesn't demonstrate notability. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 12:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Merge to William Guilfoyle as per Chiswick Chap. Article has no basis for notability and would better provide information within the William Guilfoyle article. Pagliaccious ( talk) 13:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Merge to William Guilfoyle. His only potential notability is inherited from his son. This is the normal solution in such cases. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:05, 22 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply

SHY48

SHY48 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Redirects to SNH48 keep getting deleted. This is basically a list of names, nothing more, of members of a subgroup. Most of the references are to the subgroup's website, the rest is promotional chatter like this. Drmies ( talk) 02:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep! If the group were to be involved in other activities in the future that may gain them more exposure, it would be more work to reinstate the page than to have it constantly redirected to SNH48. SHY48 has its own unique activities, and by including them in SNH48's page, it seems like including slightly irrelevant content. Who knows, members of this subgroup may turn out to be quite notable in their own ways. LMX97 ( talk) 03:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Yes, who knows--well, if those members become notable, they can get their own article; that's irrelevant for the appropriateness of this list of trivia. I note that you give no evidence of notability by way of reliable sources. Drmies ( talk) 03:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete Nothing but an unencyclopedic collection of lists, per nom. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 04:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Drmies, and I concur with his analysis of the sourcing. There is no evidence that this subject meets our inclusion guidelines. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:11, 26 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 G.12. (non-admin closure)  FITINDIA  03:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Sembadavar

Sembadavar (  | 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 coverage in reliable sources and the page currently has no references. Meatsgains ( talk) 01:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:30, 19 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)  15:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Six Inch Nails Records

Six Inch Nails Records (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, as per source searches. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Per nom, next to nothing in terms of in-depth sources exists (from google searches) to posit this company's notability.-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 17:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing ⁺⁺ 11:53, 26 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)  15:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Studio014 Entertainment

Studio014 Entertainment (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Source searches are not providing adequate reliable sources and significant coverage to qualify an article, as per WP:CORPDEPTH. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This is based entirely on primary sources, with the exception of an interview in FFWD which provides neither the title nor the actual publication date — there's no evidence of anywhere near enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:CORPDEPTH at all. Bearcat ( talk) 22:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing ⁺⁺ 11:50, 26 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 Rebstar. (non-admin closure) f e minist 12:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC) reply

2fresh Records

2fresh Records (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep, obviously! Shows up as #1 on a Google search! 01:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FertilityWizard ( talk • contribs)

• Comment – Hi FertilityWizard: check out WP:LOTSOFGHITS. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Yes! It has tons of "g hits", so keep. FertilityWizard ( talk) 01:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete I'm not sure what Google search the previous commenter did, because an actual search turned up nothing notable. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Beemer69. FertilityWizard ( talk) 04:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Rebstar. 78.26 _{( spin me / revolutions)} 15:14, 19 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. (non-admin closure) Bobherry Talk Edits 14:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Jimmy Dore

Jimmy Dore (  | 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 he is not notable enough. Of the few sources on this article, two are from Dore's own media, one doesn't exist, and two are very minor, irrelevant mentions, neither of which are relevant sources to the parts of the article that are being sourced. KingForPA ( talk) 12:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Speedy keep: Multiple significant secondary sources (Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, TruthDig, The Independent, etc.), some of which he is even named in the title of the article.   ~  Tom.Reding ( talk dgaf)  12:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Per Tom.Reding's points, and due to his frequent media appearances on various platforms/sites. Eloquai ( talk) 13:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep meets WP:BIO and WP:CS-- EC Racing ( talk) 14:15, 19 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.