The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Well in light of that source (as well as the fact all XF winners currently have articles) it's probably best to wrap this up and ignore it entirely. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rak-Su[edit]

Rak-Su (edit | 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 band, Fails NMUSIC & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 23:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Was an expired ProD. Was redirected to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 14)#Rak-Su. Now it lives again. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on precedent, winning The X Factor (UK TV series) is likely enough for notability, and there's a strong likelihood they will have a song on a national chart in the UK in the next week [1]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

McClelland v Northern Ireland General Health Services[edit]

McClelland v Northern Ireland General Health Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

(1) WP:OR - the entire article is the work of the editor, the same thing as an editor writing up a book review about their favourite novel. It is offensive to have WP editors doing this sort of work, doing their own distillation/paraphrase of case reports. All such articles have no place on WP and should be removed; (2) no source (apart from the subject itself) Sirlanz 23:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Delete- The article gives no indication of notability. However, if the article could be improved with an explanation of why this case is notable (assuming one exists, ie. it set a legal precedence) then I would change to keep.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- The nominator's reasoning confuses me. Are you saying that the case is made-up? A Google search shows that it is real.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not suggesting the case is a fabrication. Notability is also not the basis of my nomination. The article is a paraphrase/distillation of a case report. It is entirely the editor's original work. The extraction from an official case report of a case's essence (which is what this editor has done) is precisely what lawyers, judges and academics attempt to do. If any article about a case report is to avoid breach of WP:OR, it must cite such independent analysis, e.g. as published in a law journal. Notability could also come into play in this case (though I've not attempted to research this angle) because the article offers no clue as to any impacts it has had in the community, development of new legislation, etc., or any controversies that may have resulted from it, i.e. no real-world context has been provided. sirlanz Sirlanz 00:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. 5 non bot editors in 6 years totaling 10 edits. A legal case of no great importance that I can see. No refs in the article. Best left to the legal books. Szzuk (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mehboob Almekar[edit]

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

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

(1) failure to satisfy notability - one appearance, bowling 36 balls, at state level surely marks the subject for a cricket statistics site but not for the WP general encyclopaedia; he's a cricket nobody and even more incognito on the world stage; (2) no sources Sirlanz 22:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- it's been demonstrated over and over again that lists of statistics inflated into prose do not make for an acceptable topic for an encyclopedia article. This one is sourced to a single statistics aggregator site that's been shown to have non-negligible rates of error, problematic for the biography of a (possibly) living person. I'd support a merge to a list of cricketers by club, but these lists seem to be currently deprecated. Reyk _YO! 15:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but improve. See my comments on another AfD asking User:Reyk to justify the assertions he makes about CricketArchive, which are entirely the opposite of my own significant experience. For this player, it's patently an unsatisfactory article, in that if he's still alive he'd be one of the oldest surviving players and that might be worthy of a note. But even without that, he is a first-class cricketer who has played cricket at the highest domestic level in a country that plays Test cricket: he therefore passes WP:CRIN, which is the longer, more explanatory form of WP:NCRIC which is itself the sector notability guideline that links into and informs WP:GNG. Johnlp (talk) 11:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already did justify my opinion of CricketArchive. I've seen it pop up at AfDs and in discussions regarding notability, and errors keep turning up. Mis-spelling players' names, getting confused about the identity of players with similar names (remember the S Perera debacle?) and those are only the errors we've found out about. In my experience it has a high rate of error. As for NCRIC, because this is a disputed guideline with little to no community support outside of the cricket wikiproject, it is not possible to regard "passes NCRIC" as any kind of AfD argument. The reasons this thing is so heavily disputed is that it is overly inclusive, leading to an excessive proliferation of almost contentless microstubs and the inevitable introduction of inaccuracies into the mainspace. Reyk _YO! 11:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I take Johnlp's point: this is a great article for a cricket enthusiasts' site (and I love the game, by the way). I do not subscribe to the idea that a cricketer of the most ephemeral imaginable prominence (it would be tough to dream up a greater underachiever) can ever satisfy a reasonable standard of general notability. And I repeat "general" because WP is not a specialist cricket enthusiasts' site. And a simple stat entry somewhere is nothing towards notability even in the cricketing sphere. sirlanz 14:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this article fails the general notability guidelines. Those require multiple, third party, reliable sources. Unlike members of national legislatures, cricket players do not get a special pass that allows us to just totally disregard the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Academics who have published a book with a reputable academic publisher and been a professor with tenure at a university for 10+ years are not even gauranteed default notability. How is it at all logical we give such to a cricketer who appeared in 1 top level game, and who is only mentioned in a statistical aggregator with no sources actually telling us anything substantial about him? For example Eric R. Dursteler has been a BYU history professor for 19 years, is head of the history department, has had at least 2 books he wrote published by John Hopkins University Press, was a co-author of a 500-plus page book which is the top scholarly work on Mormonism in Italy, and quite possibly the best scholarly work on Mormonism in continental Europe, has published multiple articles, is the book review editor for the Journal of Early Modern History, was a fellow with Harvard's Renasaince Research Institute in Italy, a Fulbright Fellow, and so on. I am still not positve he would pass notability guidelines though. his top cited work is at only 149 citations for example, although google scholar is not as good for history as some subjects because much of the scholarship appears in books that do not show up there as much. Since I took a class from Dursteler (History of France) I also feel I may have too much of a conflict of interest to create the article. Still a standard that excludes someone with multiple books published by top rated academic presses but includes someone who appeared in one cricket game seems odd in dead.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete I was considering a weak Keep argument based on the slightly more detailed biographical information - we have names, a date of birth etc... The argument above, however, convinces me that there needs to be an even vague attempt at parity between sectors. Given the date at which he played and the very limited information we have about his one cricket match, I feel it is very unlikely indeed that the sorts of sources required to meet the GNG are likely to be found. They may be, but I feel that on the whole it is extremely unlikely that this will be the case. Given that several RfC (such as this one) have made it clear that sports notability criteria only provide a presumption of notability if there is a hope that the GNG will ever be met, I really don't see where the substantive sources are going to come from here. If sources can be found - and it's entirely possible that they may be, say on his death, then I would have no problem at all with the article being re-created - it's got barely any content and would take a matter of minutes to re-create if sources can be found. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Johnpacklambert and Blue Square Thing. Does not pass GNG and seems highly unlikely that sources apart from statistical profiles will be found in the future. Dee03 14:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Strzok[edit]

Peter Strzok (edit | 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 because the individual is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia page. The individual may at some point warrant a page of his own, but his sole claim to notability at this point is having been in the Mueller team and having been removed from the investigation for referring to the President as "crazy". I'm sure the Republican Party and rightwing media will get into the weeds on this individual and make him notable, but so far he's not notable. 2017 Special Counsel investigation is sufficient. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

• Keep- he's been getting a ton of media coverage (see references in the article) and has strengthen Trump's claim that the Russia investigation is a "witch hunt". Also, he is notable for his involvement in two separate events: The Russia investigation and Hillary Clinton email controversy.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sure that dozens of individuals were involved in either the Russia interference investigation or the Clinton e-mail controversy. That's not sufficient for inclusion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but he wasn't just involved. He had a significant influence on Comey's findings in the Clinton investigation and he is the only person removed from Meuller's investigation for misconduct.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to suggest that he "had a significant influence on Comey's findings in the Clinton investigation". Are you referring to Strzok being one of many to review a draft of the investigation's findings? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to the fact that he changed the wording from "grossly negligent" (which would suggest a crime was committed) to the much milder "extremely careless."--Rusf10 (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes? He reviewed the draft, along with many other people. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the CNN article that is referenced[2]: "Electronic records show Peter Strzok, who led the investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server as the No. 2 official in the counterintelligence division, changed Comey's earlier draft language describing Clinton's actions as "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless," the sources said." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusf10 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't think the individual staffers in the investigation should even be mentioned on 2017 Special Counsel investigation. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, we don't need to cover every micro-development just because pro-Trump or anti-Trump maelstroms in the media generate at least two news articles on them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coverage may have partisan motivations, but there's enough for GNG at this point independently of the Special Counsel investigation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 22:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 22:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The current article reads a lot like a WP:PSEUDO biography, as little real biographical information is known on Strzok and his sudden appearance in the news stems from USA partisan politics. From a BLP standpoint, I also question the value of including information about an alleged affair, with names, followed by naming Strzok's wife just below that. However, while I agree with power~enwiki that individual staffers probably shouldn't be mentioned on the 2017 Special Counsel investigation article, due to the news coverage I think there should be a few sentences at that article incorporating the salient points about Strzok's removal from the team for cause. Likewise at the Clinton email article with regard to that portion, if editors so choose. In summary, the political content is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, but we shouldn't have a Peter Strzok BLP unless further events, notability, or significance warrants it. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Firing of Peter Strzok per AzureCitizen, WP:PSEUDO, and WP:BLP1E. That is probably the subject that will have long-term coverage. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Strzok has not actually been fired from anything. He was reassigned within the FBI, where he is still employed. bd2412 T 20:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BD2412: Ok then move to any of the following:
      • Dismissal of Peter Strzok
      • Removal of Peter Strzok
      • Reassignment of Peter Strzok
      etc. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note also that I am specifically opposed to deletion. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Like most FBI agents, he has labored in near-complete anonymity for his entire career until this week. This is a classic case of WP:NOTNEWS and/or WP:BLP1E. At most, this could be a redirect to a paragraph in 2017 Special Counsel investigation. And I'm sorry, but "Firing of Peter Strzok" is even less notable than he is personally, and fails WP:NOTNEWS even more completely. As for "don't mention individual staffers at the investigation article" as several people have said - there is a list, a bare-bones list, of Mueller's team members at that article now - and has been ever since the article was created. Yes, Strzok is listed. --MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep. It's true he has been relatively obscure up to now, but indications now are that he will be the subject of continuing and ongoing coverage in the future. --MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a centralized BLP and manually divest relevant political content into relevant investigation articles. AzureCitizen and MelanieN makes a lot of good points. Strzok is apparently becoming mildly relevant in reference to the newer investigation. It would be best to have the email server investigation content in that article if it is useful. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is not correct that "his sole claim to notability at this point is having been in the Mueller team and having been removed from the investigation..." He is also known for attending Hillary Clinton's FBI interview, he interrogated Hillary's top aids, he interviewed Gen. Michael Flynn, and he is known to have sent emails revealing strong bias in favor of Clinton and against Trump. JD Lambert^(T|C) 03:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Removing this information is revisionist. Most of the facts in this article are supported in the media. I contend that most of delete's are motivated by the writers politics. Not in an attempt to keep the information pure. Of course, this person's information can be added too. But nothing should be subtracted. Bronco46 (talk) 03:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Now that he is in the spotlight there will be much more information surfacing. In addition to "extremely careless" draft change, he conducted the interviews, along with DOJ attorney David Laufman, of Clinton, Mills, and Abedin as well as the interview with Flynn resulting in the lying charge. It is interesting to note that he gave Mills and Abedin a pass on their denial of knowledge of the existence of HRC severer when later email exchanges proved the contrary. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia needs to avoid taking sides politically. Deletion of this page will look like Wikipedia is attempting to whitewash the facts. I'm sure every member of the team that investigated Richard Nixon during Watergate has a page, so should every member of Mueller's team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treymd (talk • contribs) 07:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• KeepThis person played a very important role in a number of recent important FBI investigations. This entry could be deleted at the beginning of 2018 if it will turn out that he has done nothing wrong (very doubtful). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.147.149.10 (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— 120.147.149.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep This isn't some rank and file FBI agent. He was the lead investigator in at least two extraordinarily high profile investigations involving the two 2016 U.S. Presidential Election candidates. Even before the controversies there was ample coverage of him. He doesn't become less notable once his role in the investigation became more controversial and the focus of an enormous amount of very substantial independent coverage in reliable sources. Many are hoping the investigation into possible collusion with Russia is enough to remove the U.S. president from office and put him in jail. This is not a minor deal. Nor was the other investigation involving Clinton's server. Many have blamed it for her election loss. And the FBI investigation into it is right now being investigated by the Justice Department's Inspector General and a focus of Congressional inquiry. So the media coverage is not over by any means. FloridaArmy (talk) 09:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I agree with MelanieN that "Firing of Peter Strzok" would not be notable, but at this point WP:BLP1E no longer applies, since, as been pointed out by other editors, it is not simply a single instance, but several notable events which this person has been a part of. And as also been pointed out by other editors, I fear that the breadth of coverage of this individual is only going to grow over the coming months. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd just like to note that the deletion request has drawn attention at the conspiracy forum /r/the_donald, which may explain the participation of IP numbers, red accounts and infrequent editors in this discussion[3][4][5]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Please be civil and assume good faith. IP users and the accounts you call "red" are are human too. Politrukki (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  This article deletion proposal was also mentioned last night on the Fox News channel. JD Lambert^(T|C) 19:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  That's amazing. Do you have a link to it or recall which show? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I have serious memory problems, but it was a show last night and it was a female who mentioned it. I also don't watch much TV, don't care about celebrities, but I happened to be watching last night for a few minutes. Possibly it was the host of "The Ingraham Angle," or a female being interviewed on the show before or after that one. JD Lambert^(T|C) 01:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  You appear to be correct: "As a weird aside to this whole fiasco, if you go to Strzok's Wikipedia page, it reads that the website is considering his whole page for deletion. That's a bit odd, don't you think?"[6] Yes, LAURA INGRAHAM. I don't remember ever agreeing with you, INGRAHAM, but you do have a point there, INGRAHAM. Politrukki (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – as others have pointed out, the subject is a subject in multiple controversies, and has been a key figure in multiple investigations. Hence the BLP1E argument is bunk. NOTNEWS argument is specious because the language drafting thing has been discussed for months, it's just that only now it was leaked that Strzok was the one who made the significant changes. NOTNEWS argument also misses the point because the news reporting surrounding Strzok is not trivial and Strzok is the central figure in the events. Politrukki (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-fucking-cisely. Voted elsewhere, but endorse the comment above in particular. Per the above argument that NOTNEWS is being cited superfluously, admins should speedy close this.73.61.20.220 (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This individual has made an important impact on the geopolitical history of the United States. Future generations should be able to retrieve the facts regarding how this individual personally impacted for better or worse the destiny of these United States of America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.219.88 (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— 4.121.219.88 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep Strzok's involvement, and more importantly, his conduct, in probes concerning former FLOTUS Hillary Rodham Clinton and associates of current POTUS, President Donald Trump, and the reasons for his demotion by Mueller are unquestionably important. Quis separabit? 18:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. The subject has received broad coverage, and was actually an integral investigator in some of the FBI's most important cases long before these matters came up. bd2412 T 20:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I am not terribly opposed to redirecting to the Special Counsel investigation, either. bd2412 T 02:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking due to improvement to the article. It should now definitely be kept. bd2412 T 22:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like to note that I could not find a single RS that identifies Peter Strzok by his name in the headlines of their reporting, yet this individual is supposed to be notable enough for a Wikipedia page? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & Redirect to 2017_Special_Counsel_investigation#Mueller_and_investigation_team where the subject is already mentioned. Notability is marginal at best, while the article is a BLP landmine. Anything worth saying about the subject can be said in the target article. Off-wiki canvassing and SPA-votes are also a concern. The name is a plausible search term, so interested readers can be directed to the target article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & Redirect to 2017_Special_Counsel_investigation#Mueller_and_investigation_team ... A person doesn't become notable for a biography for one moment of tiny infamy! Tom Ruen (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2017 Special Counsel investigation#Mueller and investigation team per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS — JFG ^talk 02:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To shoot down this article under WP:BLP1E, you apparently need all 3 of these things: [1] reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event (not true here since multiple investigations are covered); [2] the person is likely to remain, a low-profile individual (not here given the vast coverage and more to come); [3] the individual's role was not substantial (uh, interrogating Mike Flynn to the point where Flynn lied is substantial all by itself). As for WP:NOTNEWS, we have coverage of Strzok going back months, cited in this BLP:

• • Doering, Christopher. "Thieves see ag trade secrets as ripe for picking", Des Moines Register (March 7, 2016).
  • Schmidt, Michael S.; Goldman, Adam; Lichtblau, Eric (April 22, 2017). "Comey Tried to Shield the F.B.I. From Politics. Then He Shaped an Election". The New York Times
  • Prokupecz, Shimon. "Special counsel brings on FBI official who oversaw Clinton email investigation", CNN (July 13, 2017).
  • Bertrand, Natasha (August 16, 2017). "A top FBI investigator has unexpectedly stepped away from special counsel Mueller's Russia probe". Business Insider
  • Levine, Mike. "Special counsel's Russia probe loses top FBI investigator", ABC News (August 16, 2017)
  • Uchill, Joe. "High-ranking FBI official leaves Russia probe", The Hill (August 16, 2017)
  • Levine, Mike; Thomas, Pierre (September 28, 2017). "Special counsel's Russia investigation team loses 2nd FBI veteran". ABC News.
  • Hosenball, Alex. "Special counsel Robert Mueller has assembled a team of 16 seasoned prosecutors", ABC News (September 29, 2017).

That’s a lot of coverage that preceded the massive December 2017 coverage, especially given that the FBI is tight-lipped. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)expanded14:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete & Redirect to 2017_Special_Counsel_investigation#Mueller_and_investigation_team. No in-depth secondary coverage independent of the investigation. Most of the "keep" votes about fail to make any policy-related argument and should be discounted by the closer. Neutrality^talk 03:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Note the many single-purpose accounts, new accounts, etc., who have popped up, apparently from off-wiki canvassing. These "votes" above fail to make an policy-based argument - they don't point to sources, but merely claim "WP:ITSIMPORTANT." Users' subjective opinions as to "importance" are not relevant. What is relevant are the presence (or absence) of in-depth, secondary sources meriting a standalone page. That's not the case here. Neutrality^talk 03:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth pointing this out, but it should not be overstated. By my count, only four of the contributions above were from single purpose/IP accounts. The vast majority of "votes" here (whether keep or delete) are from regular contributors.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand. Seems like a notable person, lots of news coverage, plenty of footnoted information in the BLP, I just added a little more. The BLP subject has been involved in multiple high-profile investigations, not just one, according to the BLP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Here is this BLP as it stood at 02:17 on December 7. I started editing immediately thereafter, and with two other editors have greatly upgraded the BLP (e.g. number of footnotes doubled, et cetera). I believe this revised version satisfies most of the objections made against the previous version at 02:17 on December 7. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Coment Redirecting to 2017 Special Counsel investigation would imply that is the only thing notable, ignoring he was the deputy head of FBI counter-intelligence, he conducted the interviews of Clinton, Mills, Abedin, and Flynn, he was instrumental in softening the language of the Comey July 2016 Clinton email statement. We sound elitist when we wish to discount “IP numbers, red accounts and infrequent editors”. IMHO more time is needed to allow this article to expand. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & Redirect to 2017_Special_Counsel_investigation#Mueller_and_investigation_team. Not seeing any convincing policy arguments in the keep contributions. This is a WP:BLP so any inadequacies need to be fixed quickly. There are only allegations at the moment ("reports of") which is what people are saying make him notable. If those allegations are proved, we can reconsider an article. Otherwise, lots of FBI agents interview high-profile people. That does not make them notable. I'm not sure why changing wording based on the outcome of an investigation is problematic. If the original allegation is gross negligence but the investigation finds only extreme carelessness, then the wording should be changed. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Extremely noteworthy, on his own. He is becoming a central player in the both Russian collusion and Hilary email stories. BneiBrakPhone (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• KEEP because of current undermined controversy involving Strzok's rewriting of the charges being considered against Hillary Clinton to lesser charges, so that Hillary would be exonerated-in-advance by FBI Director James Comey. This disparity of justice is a primary concern of the American people, and should continue to be discussed in this form. ThomasLStanley (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• • Yeah, we're an online encyclopedia, not a substitute for reddit or Facebook. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He was a government worker. He broke a rule, allegedly. He was reassigned. Not notable. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Media hype, supported by right-wing activism and internet smearing. The man is a pawn in the game of life, and whatever he has done in his life before this would never have attracted any attention, and rightfully so, had it not been for this--so BLP1E certainly applies. A redirect might be appropriate and if, as one other commentator suggests, that would imply that this is the only thing for which he etc., well, that would be correct then. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the deputy director of counterintelligence at the fbi, who has been the leader of several very well-publicized investigation(s), and who got canned from the last one of those investigations, is a pawn in the game of life, then what are we? Such tiny little insignificant specks, each of us less than a full granule of dust in the wind, oh the pain, my self image is hurting now, woe unto Wikipedia editors.  :-( Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what he is, at least for notability purposes. In his own life I'm sure he's huge, and in the life of the people he oversees, and I have no doubt he makes a nice six-figure salary, and none of that really means anything. You know that if he hadn't became yet another political punching bag (irrespective of whether he did something wrong or not) no one in their right mind would have ever cared, as the timestamp on your edits to the article indicate. Sorry to bust that bubble about you and me and our egos. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but he has become a politic punching bag, and this has been fairly widely reported. Frank Wills was merely a security guard, and would be completely non-notable for his station, but he happened to get involved in a matter of national interest. bd2412 T 23:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While initial coverage regarding his reassignment from the Special Counsel probe have justified a redirect, additional coverage reported widely in major news sources, CNN, Washington Post, etc. and his involvement in not just the Trump-Russia probe but the Clinton investigation as well and significant actions in both make him notable independently of either individually. Full disclosure I've made a few earlier edits to the article, adding the current events person tag and the FBI agents category. Phil (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Subject has significant coverage following a recent event. (Note: I've added the CNN ref, and the new page reviewer suject to this AFD.) KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 19:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin: From the start of this ADF on 21:25, 5 December 2017 this article has expanded from 5,591 bytes to 13,698 bytes and from 9 RS to 27 RS as of 22:43, 9 December 2017. Grahamboat (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Topic passes GNG from sources already showing in the footnotes. Carrite (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- it's still a "Delete / Redirect" for me. With edits such as this ("reportedly brought attention to Steele dossier"), deletion is the best option. Too many BLP concerns and WP:INVALIDBIO situation. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think “reportedly brought attention to Steele dossier” is supported by the cited source? Browne, Pamela. "Fired FBI official at center of Flynn, Clinton, dossier controversies revealed", Fox News (December 2, 2017). That source says, he “reportedly helped push the largely unverified dossier on Trump that was initially prepared by Fusion GPS for the Clinton campaign's opposition research.” The NYT confirms that Strzok made use of that dossier, see Schmidt, Michael S.; Goldman, Adam; Lichtblau, Eric (April 22, 2017). "Comey Tried to Shield the F.B.I. From Politics. Then He Shaped an Election". The New York Times: “It took weeks for this information to land with Mr. Strzok and his team. Mr. Steele had been a covert agent for MI6 in Moscow, maintained deep ties with Russians and worked with the F.B.I., but his claims were largely unverified. It was increasingly clear at the F.B.I. that Russia was trying to interfere with the election.” Undoubtedly Strzok was part of a team at the FBI, but Wikipedia has BLPs on lots of members of various teams. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Probably of permanent interest. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of neurofibromatosis charities[edit]

List of neurofibromatosis charities (edit | 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 removed the external links in accordance with WP:ELLIST, and only one charity on the list links to an article. I'm not sure this list merits an article per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Natureium (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The fact all the list entries were substituted with external links means non of them are notable. Ajf773 (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: If neurofibromatosis were commonplace, I would have encountered this term and possibly a charity by now. 1/3000 seems a long shot. 165.91.12.190 (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All Assam Chutia Students Union[edit]

All Assam Chutia Students Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is related to recent disruption at Chutiya Kingdom. The sources are not independent. The two which are not the group itself, are based on press releases. There's no credible evidence that this group passes WP:GNG, and the WP:PA creator is almost certainly a member. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Insignificant Students Union, fails WP:GNG. FITINDIA 09:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non notable. - Mar11 (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Midlands Merit League. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huyton Bulldogs[edit]

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

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

Amateur club which doesn't appear to be notable. Played one season in a feeder league and seem to have folded after that. J Mo 101 (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redirect per The Bushranger: Article doesn't establish it's notability. Mattlore (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Midlands Merit League, the league they played in. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bruneau (restaurant)[edit]

Bruneau (restaurant) (edit | 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 prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale "Michelin-starred restaurant is probably notable". Well, the article doesn't even mention Michelin star, but in either case, is this enough to make a restaurant notable? Particularly in absence of any other sources, making this a perennial stub... Good to discuss for the future. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Has a Michelin star. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing clear here. What policy states this is sufficient? I say it may be sufficient for a merge and redirect to List of Michelin 3-star restaurants. Not that there is anything to merge, really. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:V. The Banner talk 13:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. According to the Dutch Wikipedia article, this was a three star restaurant from 1988 to 2004, and then lost its second star in 2010. A very recent item in Food and Wine Gazette notes that "Michelin paid hommage to the legendary chef Jean-Pierre Bruneau who will retire in January. His Brussels restaurant Bruneau has been in the guide for 42 years, 15 of which as a 3 Michelin star restaurant." [7] Here's a recent article about the restaurant's upcoming closing from Food&Sens and there are many more articles, especially in French, about the restaurant and the chef that can be used to improve this article. I can understand the recent spate of restaurant AfDs directed toward run of the mill restaurants with only limited local notoriety, but three-star restaurants, past or present, are the sort of thing that belong in the encyclopedia, and the article should be developed, not eliminated. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Not because of the Michelin Star, there are literally over a thousand restaurants that have one. The reason is when I did a google search on the chef I found a ton of articles (Unfortunately they are not in English, so I can't read them though).--Rusf10 (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep move coverage in French: [8], [9]. I'd be inclined to support a guideline that Michelin 3-star restaurants are presumably notable, but there's no policy to that effect currently. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - WP:GNG - The Michelin Guide is considered a notable list [10], and as such a reliable source. Power~enwiki shows that there is also other in-dept attention for the subject. As such, it meets WP:GNG. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There is enough here that WP:GNG can be satisfied. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The are are not a thousand restaurant that have eve had two stars (as this one has had), but a few hundred, and I consider all of them presumptively notable. Any such restaurant will have extensive non-promotional coverage. I am much less sure about extending it down to one star. DGG ( talk ) 23:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I came up with thousands based on this:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/map-michelin-star-restaurants-countries-with-the-most/. But you are correct that most of them only have one star.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. –Superbly rated, recognized by peers, referenced, Gault Millau high-rating and Michelin star do surely establish notability here. –Ammarpad (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A restaurant that quote "has been a beacon of shining excellence", formerly held 3 Michelin stars for 16 years, and still has one. Sources have been added, there is more work to do here, but this is not material for deletion let alone uncontroversial deletion via PROD. Sam Sailor 15:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable, passes GNG. There are ample references that are intellectually independent. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SNOW DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Williams[edit]

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

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

not a public figure, almost 8 years removed from a minor office — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olympiaattorney (talk • contribs) 18:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Former member of the Washington House of Representatives. Passes WP:NPOL. (Adding signature - --Enos733 (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep. The Washington state legislature is not a "minor office" — state legislators have a straight pass of WP:NPOL #1 as articles that we must have, and the notability of a state legislator is not dependent on whether he's currently still in office or not.Given that nominating this for deletion was the nominator's first-ever Wikipedia contribution under this username (not to mention the nominator's username itself), I frankly suspect that this nomination is actually a conflict of interest attempt by Williams himself or a colleague to sweep the sexual harassment allegations under the rug — but while we do have a responsibility to be careful to address those in a neutral way, we do not have any responsibility to participate in simply making them disappear entirely. The article has existed since 2008 without anybody attempting to have it deleted until after the edit war commenced over the inclusion of the allegations. Article does need sourcing improvement, because it depends too much on primary sources as written, but the base notability claim fully passes our inclusion standard. Anything beyond that is a content issue, not a deletion issue. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I've listed the nominator for a sockcheck against the article's other recent editwarriors. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep very suspicious nomination. The SPA only two edits are on this nomination barely minutes after creating account. Bearcat analysis is very plausible and this is censoring of Wikipedia. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have actually seen articles on past members of state legislatures deleted as attack articles, however this does not count as an attack articles. There is no undue weight given to the accusations against Williams. This is actually a well sourced and comprehensive biography of a state legislator, of the type we ought to have for every member of every national or top level sub-national legislature in the whole wrold. We are far short of that goal, even for current legislatures, and outside the US congress probably short of that goal for every legislature in the world, including the British parliament.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glowing pickle[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Fails GNG, due to title would probably be OR if not for the two refs. (Title makes it sound like a specific glowing pickle, which it is not.) South Nashua (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move to Glowing pickle experiment or something similar. This has been covered non-trivially by several RS, including the Washington Post. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to confirm, you want to delete the article here, but recreate it with a more appropriate title? If there is additional RS, I'd be fine with something like Electrical conductivity within pickles or something like that, although a broader scope would probably be more prudent. South Nashua (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. (article-author here) I had planned to move it to Glowing pickle demonstration (it's usually something you see not that you do yourself, and it's more about the glowing than the simple conductivity), but Glowing pickle experiment is reasonable too. But I did not want to rename it while a discussion about its previous form was happening at WP:Deletion review. DMacks (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll move it for you to that first title you recommended, I think we've developed some good discussion here to improve the article and establish notability. The title is confusing, so I think a redirect and move may help resolve the issue in addition to the additional RS. South Nashua (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Science project would seem to be the logical place, but that article has so many problems I'm not sure it's relevant. This, and other common projects such as a baking soda volcano, have enough coverage to meet GNG, but aren't great topics for stand-alone articles. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (as creator of its current form). Independently notable demonstration--some popular press, but also used in multiple academic settings and identified as a specifically useful teaching example. There are hidden comments with cites of a standard chemistry textbook discussion of it and a J. Chem. Ed. article discussing the teaching-usefulness of it. To quote that article, "The electric pickle is a classic demonstration that has been widely used in both high school and college settings to explain the general principles behind atomic emission. This demonstration is particularly helpful..." DMacks (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep  This is a demonstration at a science center I have visited, and that it is widely known can be confirmed using Google.  The argument for deletion is incoherent, and there is no evidence that the nominator attempted to resolve his dispute or even clarify his/her viewpoint before involving AfD volunteers.  AfD is for discussion regarding worthless articles that need admin tools.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's no such thing as a worthless article, only an article that doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Every edit has worth to someone. South Nashua (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep verifiable and notable science experiment. The present sources in the article shows the experiment stands out of many and no convincing reason for deletion. This is also not WP:OR as the nom thought, as clearly shown by reference used. I also agree with renaming (move) as some people suggested above, although this is not place to discuss such–Ammarpad (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Pardon me if I rant a bit here. AfD's sometimes make me shake my head, usually at the total crap people are arguing to keep. This one makes me sad, and a little angry, at the idea that we're trying to get rid of an article on an important STEM topic. I'll admit I had never heard of the glowing pickle experiment until a few days ago, but it didn't take me long to discover that this is a classic electrochemistry demonstration. What makes it popular is the entertainment value, but it's also a serious scientific demonstration. It touches on both classical chemistry of salt solutions and electrical conduction, but also on quantum mechanics and atomic orbitals to explain the electroluminescent properties. If we're not keeping articles like this, what's the point? Anyway, there's tons of good sources. Here's some of the best that I found in a few minutes. Presented more or less in order of value to demonstrate WP:N.

1. New York Times
2. Washington Post
3. Journal of Chemical Education
4. CSI: Crime Scene Investigations
5. MIT TechTV
6. University of Washington Department of Chemistry
7. Chemistry as a Game of Molecular Construction: The Bond-Click Way

Addendum: It also saddens me that whoever did the initial stub sorting, tagged this as a Vegetable stub, but not a Science stub (I've since fixed that). -- RoySmith (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow keep. The bold decision by Oakshade to add references resolved the issues raised. (non-admin closure) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 16:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hellertown station[edit]

Hellertown station (edit | 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 GNG, RAILOUTCOMES. Only ref I could find was a blog post from a few years back. South Nashua (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- sources just don't seem to be there. I'd be all for keeping if more sources could be found though.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Hellertown, Pennsylvania#Transportation which has a carbon copy of this stub (and this will keep the link in SEPTA-related articles blue). Nate • (chatter) 23:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've got sources now (and I pretty much hoped for that), so this can be switched to a keep (though an "infobox station" about its place in the SEPTA system would be appreciated). Nate • (chatter) 21:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Hellertown, Pennsylvania#Transportation, where this is already covered. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Extremely in-depth multi-page coverage in the 2001 book When the Railroad Leaves Town [11]. This is more coverage than many former stations that have articles where there is no issue of notability. Other independent coverage exists too. [12][13] This article was AfD'd in less than one day of its creation [14] which really shouldn't have been done for a real rail station past or present and is a case of WP:BITE. --Oakshade (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- with the new source, I can support keeping as I mentioned before.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We generally keep all railway stations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  The talk page is still red.  As per WP:BEFORE C3, "If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page...".  WP:BEFORE D1 includes Google books, which aren't mentioned in the nomination.  One of those refs I've added to Springtown, Bucks County, Pennsylvania and wikilinked to Hellertown station.  This ref shows that train stations are used as points of reference.  I also added a gazetteer reference from 1871 to the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a very well sourced article. I am thinking we should go to acepting every train station as notable, if that has not been done. I would like to see a statement of when the station was founded, but we have enough to keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I wouldn't call this "very well sourced", but there's now enough for me to change my !vote to Keep. Good work finding the additional reference. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball keep under the WP:GNG. Sufficiently referenced for a station. gidonb (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Turner Prize winners and nominees. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Turner Prize[edit]

2015 Turner Prize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Stub article with info that would be better suited to Turner Prize. This article has less info than that article already includes for 2015. Lopifalko (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Possible search term. Could be expanded at some point, if someone had an interest in the area. On a side note, maybe nominate the page for the Turner Prize as "Attempted Article".... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Later I intend to also nominate stub articles 2017 Turner Prize, 2014 Turner Prize, 2012 Turner Prize and 2010 Turner Prize. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect all to List of Turner Prize winners and nominees. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Could only be a list with a few details, best redirected. Szzuk (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Redirect to Turner Prize. where the shortlist can be included.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of State Security (Russia)[edit]

Ministry of State Security (Russia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

Ministry for State Security (Russia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

News about the creation of this ministry originated from this Kommersant article (in Russian) dated 19 September 2016; the story was picked up and republished by Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Politico, etc. A month later a Russian official (Sergei Ivanov) denied that this ministry will ever be created. This is the most recent story I could find on the topic; given that it has been over a year since then, I suggest that the article and its fork Ministry for State Security (Russia) should be deleted as a non-notable hoax. eh bien mon prince (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The citations at the article support this organization exists and is notable. The article should be kept in Wikipedia. IQ125 (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, they don't support the existence of this ministry, they just reported that maybe one will be created one day, all based on a single source from over a year ago, and even that has been denied. The article is literally about a debunked rumor, and not even a notable one.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete weather this was a hoax or an actual plan that was then abandoned, it does not exist, never did exist, is not planned, and nothing about it merits an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it looks like just to be a rumor, which had no noticeable effects. A ntv (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Religion in San Marino. WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Islam In San Marino[edit]

Islam In San Marino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I don't think there is any encyclopedical information in this article or that it will expand beyond two statements it has now Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There do not seem to be any sources attesting to the subject's notability, and even the population figure, where reported, seems to be more a concession to measurement error than a true estimate. If any notable information does emerge it can be incorporated into Religion in San Marino, but at the moment there is no content worth merging. MarginalCost (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Patar Knight. MarginalCost (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Religion in San Marino, where Islam being a very small minority there is mentioned and sourced. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Patar Knight.PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Signs (Paranormal City song)[edit]

Signs (Paranormal City song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I've heavily edited this page to remove unsourced and (in some cases) fictitious claims, including winning non-existent awards, and removed two very comprehensive tables claiming international singles charts positions for 2002 (the song was recorded in 2014): I've also removed a lot of the indiscriminate piped links such as [[Management|Niall Bishop]], [[Magazine|''Slasher'' magazine]] and (egregiously) [[Iceland Music Awards|''Ireland Weekly'']] which appear to have been added in an effort to pad out the page with blue links and thus appear to be more significant. The enduring issue, though, is that none of the remaining references support the claims in the article, and the certifications table is completely unsourced - and in spite of my best efforts, I cannot find anything online to corroborate the claims regarding international sales. Even with this, WP:SONGS states "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable)" - and without it, I feel the page definitely fails GNG. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Notwithstanding the apparently deliberate inexactitudes noted above, what remains of the article doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSINGLE. On the latter, if the claimed Irish chart placement ("number one in Ireland") were true, then it would likely contribute to notability. However, a review of the IRMA music chart history (circa July 2015 - the claimed release date), returns nothing relating to this song or artist. The chart placements in other countries also fail verification (for example there is zero mention in the US Billboard Top 100 for the period (Aug 2015) when it was supposedly charting there.) The awards are equally spurious. (For example, the claimed 'Top 500 Songs of 2015' exists only in this article. And perhaps someone's imagination). GNG is also not supported (The reviews and coverage claimed in the article are not supported. And, for example, as with the 'Top 500 Songs of 2015', the music journalist "Richard Bugarri" from the magazine "Slasher" has no internet presence - outside of this article). In short, the subject fails the required notability criteria (and the coverage of the subject substantively skirts hoax guidelines). Delete. Guliolopez (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: it's not exactly a hoax, because the artist and the song do exist (and you know what, it's actually pretty good). But the chart placings and the certifications/sales are all entirely fictitious... this song didn't chart anywhere. Once you take those out, the article is left with a lot of OR about the song's background and meaning, and some supposed reviews, airplay and awards, none of which are sourced anywhere. You can't even find this song to buy or stream on iTunes, Amazon or Spotify, just on Ryan's Soundcloud and YouTube channels. In short, everything points to this being a song recorded in Ryan's bedroom (including the video) and it fails WP:NSONG. Richard3120 (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: now the artiste's page has been deleted, this page has become an orphan. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L. Savage[edit]

Robert L. Savage (edit | 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 NPOL, GNG. A list of mayors on the Emeryville page would be fine, but it's unclear that he's notable on his own. South Nashua (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Mayors of small towns aren't automatically presumed notable just because they exist, but this isn't referenced well enough to pass the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our inclusion criteria for local officeholders — the only reliable sources here are not covering him in the context of his mayoralty, but are just namechecking his existence in the context of the death of his grandson. And no, being a small-town's first African-American mayor isn't an automatic notability boost either — it might make a difference if the coverage of him nationalized for that reason, but it doesn't automatically make him more notable than all of Emeryville's other mayors if sufficient sourcing isn't there to support it. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - subject of the article does not meet our inclusion criteria for politicians, specifically failing to be the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Emeryville is not even a significant enough city to have it clearly spelled out in the article on the city if it has a mayor-council or city manager with figurehead mayor system of government. Clearly having a grandchild kiled in an interaction with the police is not enough to make Savage himself notable. Emeryville had under 7,000 inhabitants when Savage was mayor, and is a city with 1.2 square miles of land sandwiched between Oakland, California and Berkeley, California. It, like many other places in the San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose area is the base of many computer related companies, possibly most notably Pixar, and has a deep cultural cache. However none of this rises to a level giving the mayor notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick G. Strickland[edit]

Frederick G. Strickland (edit | 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 GNG, NBIO. Didn't think an A7 applied, though. Only found one other ref after a Google search. South Nashua (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Question – Which other ref was that, South Nashua? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This little blurb. Not even sure if it's the same guy! South Nashua (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Negligible GS cites. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete The nature of Wikipedia rules on notability mean that when you have to go back over 100 years to find references on someone, they are generally not notable. On the other hand there needs to be major improvements to our article on Knipperdolings. Two things remain unclear, one is how Strickland and associates were connected to the 16th-century Anabaptists. Was there a continual line of actions, or did Strickland and his associates start the new movement after reading of the ideas of the 16th-century Anabaptists. Considering that one of the main sources on Knipperdolings was published in 1804, we clearly have sub-par sourcing. I do have to admit that one of my big concerns about many of the articles on religious groups in Wikipedia is there is rarely much good information on group size. At least a lot of articles would do well to report at least the number of congregations a group has had at various times.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of Wikipedia rules on notability mean that when you have to go back over 100 years to find references on someone, they are generally not notable. To which rule are you referring, specifically? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, when you have to go back over 100 years to find references on someone, what you have is a dissertation topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but Wikipedia is not the place to write dissertations. It is an encyclopedia that is meant to reflect currently contemporary scholarship on a topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't answered the question: to which rule were you referring, specifically? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment When you go back over 100 years what you find are sources. There may be enough of them to source a page on this minor socialist; socialists write a lot. I recommend searching both Fred and Frederick, I didn't use his initial just his surname and keywords like "Yellow Springs" and socialist. Where I have grave doubt is about the assertion that he was a Knipperdollings. Bernhard Knipperdolling was a real 16th century anabaptist. Where the Strickland article goes off the rails is in the assertion that Strickland was a Knipperdolling. It seems to come from this 1904 nespapaercolums [15]], but it is not clear that nay knipperdollings sourvived the Münster rebellion of 1534. The term was as a put-down of something Strickland had written and, from that, turned into a wikipedia article Knipperdolings which needs to be deleted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "The nature of Wikipedia rules on notability mean mean that when you have to go back over 100 years to find references on someone, they are generally not notable" is the exact opposite of a valid argument. Wikipedia covers the entire range of people, and the entire historical range of source. WP is not a current record of just the last 100 years, but an encyclopedia. Sources are available, and there is no reason why the career was not notable in its time; once notable , always notable is the true rule for an encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 10:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per DGG and clear neglect of WP:BEFORE. Despite the nominator's claim that only one other reference can be found on Google, a quick search turns up at least another half-dozen sources – and that's without clicking onto page 2 and without using any less-than-obvious search terms. (Having not done extensive research, on can only assume prima facie that this is the same person as surely there can't be that many American Christian socialist ministers with the name Frederick Strickland active in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.) And given that we're dealing with an historical figure, it shouldn't come as a surprise that most information would not be freely available on the internet. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, mostly per WP:RECENT along the lines of what DGG already said. But I think his inclusion in the 1908 Who's Who (back when that meant something) also goes a long way towards WP:GNG. Also I think the De Leon source should be removed per WP:ATTACK; it is clearly editorial in nature and would not be tolerated as a source if the subject were living, so why is it ok in this case? —David Eppstein (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sources that come up in searches suffice to establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:RECENT, as others have argued above. XOR'easter (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Jimfbleak, speedy deletion criteria CSD A7, CSD G11. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Triveen nair[edit]

Triveen nair (edit | 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. I am unconvinced by the refereces; the novel is basically self-published. Before I gave the article a fairly savage haircut it was a classic vanity biog. TheLongTone (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG. Promo piece. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Author comment I found his book in amazon and found out that he has good writing. I started researching about this guy and collected this details. User:Kichuaruatu) 21:45, 5 December 2017 (IST)
  • Going to Amazon does not constitute "researching", and I removed the link you gave to the book on Amazon. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unanimous delete !vote, and no substantial contributions other than the creator who has requested deletion as well. WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Shops at Putterham[edit]

The Shops at Putterham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unremarkable and non-notable shopping area cited to one author. Search finds almost no sources beyond the shops and trade directories. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- This is basically a strip mall. There are thousands of strip malls, its not notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Does not meet WP:N, as per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a retail guide for every single little mall or centre. Ajf773 (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Yeah, I'm not sure what I was thinking when I wrote this page. This is not notable. Can I replace the AfD message with Db-author and nominate it for speedy deletion via G7? Cran32 (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Ebrahim and Company[edit]

Mohamed Ebrahim and Company (edit | 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 tried to find coverage about this company but failed. WP is WP:NOTYELLOW. Fails WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- I can't find anything on this company other than its own website.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the more common spelling is "Mohamed Ebrahim & Co.", but even using this, I'm turning up only directory listings (like linkedin) . Searches using ""Mohamed Ebrahim" merely show that there are a million people with this name. searching "Mohamed Ebrahim" + "water coolers" only prouduced more directory listings. I think we can delete this article that has sat unsourced since 2007.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Christiane Pflug. MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Pflug[edit]

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

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

Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly. The article lacks immense notability so Delete. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Zero notability. Natureium (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete being the spouse of anyone is never in and of itself grounds for notability. Some people may have coverage because of who they are married to, but we must have coverage to justify an article. In this case, that is the only marginal claim, with nothing indicating why this fact would lead to Pflug having any coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Christiane Pflug. Michael Pflug, also a painter although he earned the M.D. and was a practicing physician, did have gallery representation, and gallery shows of his work.[16] Moreover, his life art are discussed in depth in Somewhere Waiting: The Life And Art Of Christiane Pflug by Ann Davis Oxford University Press. 1991.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Le Calandre[edit]

Le Calandre (edit | 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 prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp the rationale "one of the top 50 restaurants in the world is probably notable". Well, it's an interesting issue: is inclusion in the The World's 50 Best Restaurants sufficient to make a restaurant notable? I think not, a lot of those would be perennial stubs with little to say except that it exists somewhere and won this award. I think inclusion in that list should not be enough for a stand-alone article, which should require further sources - at best those restaurants can be mentioned in the list of restaurants which made it to the The World's 50 Best Restaurants ranking. I'll also note most of those old lists have little visibility, not being archived on the awarding site's (as far as I can tell), being available only in the Internet Archive, which does not suggest this is a lasting, significant recognition (without TIA it would be almost impossible to verify those claims at all). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as detailed above. Not many restaurants make it onto the list; those that do are clearly notable. It also has three Michelin stars! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly notable per what policy? Don't say it is common sense. Common sense applies to things that have household recognition. 99.9% of people (or our editors) have never heard of that obscure award. Not all awards grant auto-notability. Michelin is a bit more famous, but again, I don't see this in the rules anywhere. We have a List of Michelin 3-star restaurants which can mention such tiny-stub restaurants without a need for them to have a stand-alone two sentence entry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Michelin is "a bit more famous"!? You really couldn't make this stuff up! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Another three-star restaurant at AfD! Of course there are sources to confirm notability. In English, here are a couple that can be used to start expanding the article: WWD, Food & Wine. Lots more in English and Italian. AfD evaluates articles based on their potential, not their current state, and the suggestion that highly distinguished restaurants like this one should be relegated to a listing on a chart is counterproductive; our content about these establishments can and should be expanded and improved, not banished and reduced to uselessness.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the mean time. Per Arxiloxos addressed, this article has the ability to grow in the near future. However, as of now, the article is an utter stub and fit for deletion. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Merge to List of Michelin 3-star restaurants, though I don't oppose a Keep. The coverage is almost all in Italian. What I find is either on the Michelin stars, or on Massimiliano Alajmo. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable restaurant judging from 100s of sources, and quoting from a few:

"one of Italy's most cutting-edge restaurants"

"is consistently judged by major restaurant critics as one of the two or three best restaurants in the country"

"This is truly a restaurant at the pinnacle of culinary achievement."

"Le Calandre is without doubt one of the top restaurants of the world."

I have added 25 sources and expanded.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]}

Is anyone suggesting that WP:BEFORE was followed here?

This AfD discussion starts with quoting a boilerplate saying the coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient ..., but notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article, and to evaluate that requires WP:BEFORE. To add insult to injury, it was obviously the wrong boilerplate being copy-pasted from User:Piotrus/Templates: this is not a biography, and while another kind editor has corrected the AfD category to |O in this diff, the nomination text retains the erroneous and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement.

It is being stated above in regards to previous lists of The World's 50 Best Restaurants that most of those old lists have little visibility, not being archived on the awarding site's (as far as I can tell), being available only in the Internet Archive, which does not suggest this is a lasting, significant recognition (without TIA it would be almost impossible to verify those claims at all). This is a misunderstanding, as (a) whether a source is live or archived is irrelevant to its value (WP:404 etc.), and more importantly (b) we use independent sources, not primary, to judge notability (WP:IS etc.). If, however, one would continue to argue that the live presence of these lists on the contrary suggested "a lasting, significant recognition", then some foot damage is happening here. Go to www.theworlds50best.com and choose LIST from the menu, then choose PREVIOUS LISTS, then choose YYYY LIST. Voila! Took 10 seconds. All lists are live online. I do prefer secondary sources, and a quick search has so far brought about reliable sources confirming Le Calandre's placement on the list for each of the last 9 years. It took me about 15 minutes. So it is not impossible to verify those claims at all.

AfD nominations like these are a waste of community time, gut feeling "notable? dubious, prodding" prods like this are harmful given the lack of WP:BEFORE, and WP:ATD is policy and should be followed. Sam Sailor 13:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the superb rating it received which is veriafiable and the sources provided above do indeed establish notability. Also existence of such vast number of sources in English do surely suggest more will be found in, their language, Italian. Also mass nomination with copy/paste rationale is surely not great idea –Ammarpad (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 FEMSA. And merge Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gorditas Doña Tota[edit]

Gorditas Doña Tota (edit | 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 prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale "more than 200 branches; clearly notable". Unfortunately, size is not a deciding factor - it is a medium sized company, but those are not auto-notable (per cited policies). As I cannot find any sources on this, and the only source (including for claimed size) is self-published, I think it is time to move this to a wider debate. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. More than 200 branches. Clearly notable per WP:COMMONSENSE. Can you imagine a similar size chain in the UK or USA being deleted? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me spell it for you. Size. Does. Not. Matter. Having few hundred outlets and no coverage in reliable sources means the company is, well, not notable. It is common sense we are not a Yellow Pages listing - even more, this is in fact a policy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me patronise you too! That's. Just. Your. Opinion. And stub articles are not just directory entries. That's only if they're for non-notable topics. And that's what we're here to discuss. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I cited policies that this entry fails. You fall on your opinion. That's a small but significant difference. Anyway, I guess we will have to disagree for now, since I don't see how I can persuade you to abandon your opinion. I think this is just a one-two sentence Yellow Page like unencyclopedic entry. You think it is a notable entity. Shrug. We will see what the other participants of this will think. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's on the very margin of acceptability, (still as you say 200 branches). I feel there is enough in this magazine article to fully justify inclusion, provided some more independent references are used. http://www.fooddrink-magazine.com/sections/restaurants/1100-gorditas-dona-tota I did notice in passing that the Spanish version of the Wiki project has an article too and mentions a 2013 FEMSA group investment of $120 MDD (so I added that), fairly notable surely. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BeckenhamBear: Can Food and Drink Magazine be considered reliable? The problem with such niche outlets is that sometimes they are pay-to-print marketing vehicles. Consider this: "Interested in being featured in an upcoming issue? Please contact jason.quan@fooddrink-magazine.com for more information." The odds are that this is the 'pay us if you are interested in a nice, positive, marketing/PR write up in the upcoming issue'. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Indeed so, that's why I said "provided some MORE independent references are used". The magazine does spout some (fairly uncontroversial) interesting? core facts that are useful, they just need to be sourced from more independent reliable sources as you point out. I just read the mag article again, considering the (low key) facts presented, it is a fairly good source. It was just an interview after all. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this for something, to compare with it. Morley's Only 35 branches, but well known in London. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The one mentioned source above is in a publication that is really just a front for paid advertising. There is nothing suggesting reliable source third party coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Aside from the Lancet, is there a magazine that's not a “front” for advertising. There’s no indication that it was paid for; there’s not even a photo, which indicates to me that its likely not to have been. My understanding is it’s the code of practise in the USA to declare interest or put above the title of the article “paid for advertisement” that isn’t the case here. It’s on Bloomberg (God help it) https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=247182537 . What about the Dallas Observer http://www.dallasobserver.com/restaurants/gorditas-doa-tota-opens-in-dallas-7037348 . In reality as it’s a subsidiary of FEMSA, its not likely to draw interest from the Wall Street Journal, and it’s not McDonalds, so I doubt a book will be written. 11 people a day are looking at it on average. That’s 4 more per day than Death of Charlotte Shaw which is showpiece article, that has almost zero notability, goes nowhere in furthering human understanding, wouldn’t get any hits at all without its click-bait title, and takes half an hour to read.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BeckenhamBear (talk • contribs) 02:08, December 1, 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly there is no case for deletion here but merging into FEMSA might have been an option. Given the size of the restaurant chain, the coverage, and the sizes of both articles, I have drawn my conclusion that keeping is the correct way forward. gidonb (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to FEMSA as per WP:ATD-M. Per source searches, this may not qualify for a standalone article. However, the suggested merge target article has no mention of this subsidiary company. As such, merging will improve the article and the encyclopedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• merge. as suggested DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suraj Patel[edit]

Suraj Patel (edit | 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:NPOL and references such as [17] are trivial. He isn't notable based on his business career either; references such as [18] are trivial coverage of him. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm fairly certain the first AfD was about a different person of the same name. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. Just for the record. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more references that demonstrate notability and that coverage is nontrivial. HPLeu (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Being an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia — he has to win the election, not just run in it, to clear WP:NPOL. But the references here are not demonstrating that he had preexisting notability for other reasons: nine of the seventeen footnotes here are glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, not coverage that's substantively about him; two are WP:ROUTINE candidate-directory sources of the type that absolutely any candidate in any election could always show; he's the author, not the subject, of two of them, and the interviewer, not the subject, in a third (but a person gets over a notability criterion by being the subject of the sources, not the creator of them); one is his primary source staff profile on the website of his own employer; and one is a Q&A interview with him on an unreliable blog. There's literally just one reference here (Punjab News Express) that's even remotely acceptable in terms of establishing notability, and one acceptable source isn't enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unelected candidates to office are not notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades ^Godric 08:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

T.O.T.E.[edit]

T.O.T.E. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Completely unsourced, probably original research, strong whiff of fringeness and inappropriate synthesis. Famous_dog (c) 11:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Famous_dog (c) 12:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Appears to be an essay written by someone who read the book. Not inherently notable ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was only able to find a few mentions of it online. This could possibly have a sentence in another article, but is not notable enough for an article. Natureium (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Move Agree that the article is not well sourced, but from some quick searching TOTE doesn't seem to be a fringe topic. It appears to be a model commonly used presented in fields like psychology and education and is described in introductory textbooks. There are plenty of possible citations from which to add context/references to be found in a Google Books search for: TOTE psychology. It also seems like the underlying work, Plans and the Structure of Behavior, is an influential work with over 8,000 citations on Google Scholar and sources like this indicating its status as a pioneering work for developing other models. Quercusechinus (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have made a good argument for having an article on Plans and the Structure of Behavior, but I looked at one of the first books you link to above and it literally says: "the book had great success... as it happened, the TOTE unit itself did not establish itself as a technical term..." That is literally the first of your references I looked at and it basically says "this isn't a widely used term". In this widely-used psychology textbook, the TOTE is basically a historical footnote. Famous_dog (c) 07:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fair. I'm alright with the idea of moving/re-frameing this to be an article about the book.Quercusechinus (talk) 03:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy There's not enough here to justify a merge/redirect, but the article could be improved by the author for subsequent relisting. Wolfson5 (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy seems best, following above discussion. While the book using the term appears to be worth an article, it doesn't look like the term itself is sufficiently well known/used. Suggest keeping this material around for a possible book article while removing it from article space. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Masters of the 1 & 2[edit]

Masters of the 1 & 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• @Power~enwiki and Etoombs: Queried speedy delete. Power~enwiki speedy-delete-tagged it as "A9. No indication of importance (musical recordings)". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 10:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 10:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no references in the article; only online stores and directories found. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: there's a very brief review on AllMusic [19] but that's not enough to justify an article on an unremarkable compilation album. And the one line of lead contains OR by describing it as "the most famous DJs of the 80s and 90s"... quite apart from being completely subjective and apparently including Malcolm McLaren as a DJ, the album only features DJs working more in the genre of hip hop, not house, trance, etc. Richard3120 (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False Alarm (band)[edit]

False Alarm (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Created by a WP:SPA and promoted bya legion of block-evading IPs, leading to a rangeblock. No reliable independent sources to show this meets WP:BAND, never charted, all claims to notability are purely by association. Basically a directory entry created by someone associated with the band or (best case) their biggest fan. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I found a couple of reviews of False Alarm albums, one from 2013 in Big Wheel magazine and the other from Sugar Buzz magazine published I think in 2008. All the other references I saw were brief mentions of the band in relation to the early history of either Fat Mike of NOFX or Cheetah Chrome of the Dead Boys. Binksternet (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. For an anti-establishment punk band, they've gotten some ink/pixels over the years. I added Binksternet's two reviews, for which thanks, and a couple of things I found myself, one of which is a primary source but sorted out the history a bit, and the others are independent reviews. I did find one ringer: there appears to have been a London punk band of the same name. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. With Yngvadottir's expansion and refs, I think we are in comfortable territory keeping this article. It's useful to the occasional reader, and not promotional or false. Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as additional reliable sources have been added as detailed above, passes WP:GNG altough needs watching to stop any promo additions Atlantic306 (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Leaving renames to post-close. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Szczuczyn pogrom[edit]

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

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

Highly problematic, WP:OR/WP:N issues. No reliable sources discuss 'Szczuczyn pogrom' (pl. 'Pogrom w Szczuczynie'). While it does appear that there were some crimes committed on Jews in that region ([20]) it does not seem likely that this crime was notable, nor that this is the correct term for it. Pl wiki uses the term 'crime', not 'pogrom', see pl:Szczuczyn_(województwo_podlaskie)#Zbrodnia_w_Szczuczynie Naming aside, I am not sure if the crime is notable, most related publications talk about the related 'Bzura crime' (pl:Mord w Bzurach, [21], [22]), and the events in Szczuczyn did not get enough coverage. The article makes some claims about a wider pogrom (100 deaths) but I cannot find source to support that claim. It is likely the author confused time and place of several other events. In either case I think it qualifies for deletion due to mistakes/OR/N, or plain WP:TNT mess. Ping User:Poeticbent. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. The sole question here is whether to use massacre or pogrom (both are used by sources). Polish POV, as reflected by Polish wikipedia, is not a source for anything (The Polish government is attempting to rewrite history - denying the complicity of Poles in the holocaust, and attempting to outlaw the term "Polish death camp" - Poland's New Government Looks to Rewrite Polish Role in the Holocaust). There are ample sources on the massacre/pogrom in Szczuczyn by Poles prior to the German occupation, e.g. - [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. After the Germans bypassed the town on their way foward, the locals killed some ~300 Jews by an axe wielding mob on 28 June, killed ~100 jews on 24 July, +possibly some other incidents (e.g. the murder of the 11 women farm hands - not sure if this is the same Szczuczyn), leaving ~600 Jews for the Germans to kill in August (and pack the remaining Jews into a ghetto, and subsequently off (fairly early) to Treblinka extermination camp - AFAIK there were very few survivors from Szczuczyn (they did however cobble together a Yizkor book with more details - [29]) - the "efficiency" in 1941-2 perhaps reduced the amount of coverage - which still reaches GNG).Icewhiz (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note the place has several variant spellings in Yiddish/Hebrew as well as a town in present day Belarus with the same name in Polish (Shchuchyn in enwiki per translit from Belarussian) where circumstances were different. Very few survived Szczuczyn - those who did mostly left (voluntarily or forcibly) in 1939-41 (during the Soviet occupation), some Hebrew sources - Yad Vashem entry, Polish Jewish heritage center entry, yizkor book, book by a survivor (online version), who left eastwards by covers the town in an appendix.Icewhiz (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Also - Kopstein, Jeffrey S., and Jason Wittenberg. "Deadly communities: Local political milieus and the persecution of Jews in occupied Poland." Comparative Political Studies 44.3 (2011): 259-283. - that discusses the events as a pogrom (referring to the Chaye Golding PRIMARY letter that is questioned in the article at present) and discusses the motivations and causes leading the Poles to massacre the Jews.Icewhiz (talk) 11:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In terms of completeness, and I'm bringing this up due to the nom asserting the Polish Wikipedia (While it does appear that there were some crimes committed on Jews in that region ([30]) it does not seem likely that this crime was notable, nor that this is the correct term for it. Pl wiki uses the term 'crime', not 'pogrom', see pl:Szczuczyn_(województwo_podlaskie)#Zbrodnia_w_Szczuczynie as a source (the POV of which I've commented above) - this is described in length in hewiki entry on town(towns with little content on hewiki other than the massacres/Jewish history don't always get a standalone massacre), ruwiki entry on the Pogrom, and uawiki entry on the Pogrom. So we have 3 at least cross-wikis here. Perhaps someone should update the Polish wikipedia entry on the town (assuming it is still legal (in Poland) to do so)?Icewhiz (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC) Struck since it appears uawiki and ruwiki are very recent and possibly same author - however the Hebrew article dates back to 2015.Icewhiz (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Icewhiz has shown enough RS to establish notability. The article needs a lot of work but definitely appears to have notability. - Galatz^Talk 12:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As discussed above, notability has been demonstrated. The proper naming and transliteration of Polish orthography needs to be addressed and further sourcing added to the article. Alansohn (talk) 13:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article can be cleaned up using massive number of WP:RSs provided by Icewhiz.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Referencing in this article is an absolute joke right now. We know that the Szczuczyn community existed as shown by weblinks provided by User:Icewhiz. Most of those links confirm the existence (!) of that community, period. This is not a part of the original write-up by User:Roman Frankiv from Ukraine (159 edits). Historian Anna Bikont (ISBN 0374710325) writes that (allegedly) a mass murder was committed in the forest near Szczuczyn by a man who was sentenced to death by the Stalinists in 1950 (the Stalinists themselves were a criminal organization). Do you see a difference between the two claims? Poeticbent talk 15:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The article can easily be improved - and some of the problems in the article seem to arise from POV pushing after the initial version (and not by the author) - e.g. this one revision 811723148 is a reasonable description of events (sourcing should've been improved - but sources are readily available). The 1950 trial of a side incident to the whole affair (the good town folk - who went about and murdered 300 Jews with axes in June 1941 (while the town was not under German occupation, as they bypassed it and didn't enter - ironically (wrongly per later events) Jews in Szczuczyn greeted the Wehrmacht in relief upon their entry due to the atrocities commited against them by the townfolk) - were not tried by the Polish communist government). This Kopstein, Jeffrey S., and Jason Wittenberg. "Deadly communities: Local political milieus and the persecution of Jews in occupied Poland." Comparative Political Studies 44.3 (2011): 259-283. and this The Encyclopedia of Jewish Life Before and During the Holocaust: Seredina-Buda-Z, page 1276, Szczuczyn amply source the two "main" events by Poles - the massacre of 300 Jews in June, and 100 more in July.Icewhiz (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't wp:bludgeon me with links which do not confirm your wayward claims. Prewar Poland was a multi-ethnic country, and names such as Yakubtshuk, Shviatlovski, Yankayitis (from Kopstein & Wittenberg), certainly do not sound Polish. Poeticbent talk 15:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That's WP:OR, though possibly correct, however the fact that the residents of Szczuczyn (Polish, Ukrainian, Belorussian, Ruthenian, German (minority outside Germany), etc.) massacred the Jewish population of the town has been amply demonstrated by RS. Kopstein&Wittenberg published in Comparative Political Studies as a peer reviewed journal is a RS, and this journal article has been cited by others.Icewhiz (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are ample sources on the massacres (or June-July 1941 pogrom) in Szczuczyn, and additional ones in the region, and all this in multiple languages. gidonb (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There might be some problems with the article but the subject itself is certainly notable (though in regard to Icewhiz's comment above I also have no idea what the Polish government is suppose to have with the Polish wikipedia). Volunteer Marek  14:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Volunteer Marek: The Polish government, elected by the Polish people, reflects the POV of some of the Polish people (presumably those who voted for them). Furthermore, when it is illegal (or poposed to be illegal) to who publicly and against the facts, accuse the Polish nation, or the Polish state, [of being] responsible or complicit in Nazi crimes committed by the III German Reich punishable by prison terms of up to three years[31] - editors in Poland may be under duress / criminal liability. Polish ministers deny Polish involvement in Jedwabne pogrom (incidentally - one of the editors here pushing for deletion - removed the holocaust sidebar there - diff), and Kielce pogrom - Two Senior Polish Ministers Deny Poles' Involvement in Massacres of Jews. And this isn't a "new" 2016-2017 "thing", as may be seen here - Shafir, Michael. Between denial and “comparative trivialization”: Holocaust negationism in post-Communist East Central Europe. No. 19. Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism, 2002.. I hope this makes the POV/legal situation on the Polish Wikipedia clearer.Icewhiz (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that - the Macleans source - is an op-ed from a very biased author who's book was roundly criticized by professional historians. The op-ed makes several false assertions (for example it is completely untrue that Jaroslaw Szarek "flatly denied Polish involvement in, and responsibility for, the communal genocide in Jedwabne in 1941". Also no such law as you mention actually exists, nor has actually been proposed afaict, what you're quoting is some media sensationalism from a two year old interview). The source basically falls within WP:FRINGE. Nobody's prosecuting anybody for editing Polish wikipedia. That's ridiculous and a bit unhinged. Volunteer Marek  16:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, all that's off topic. And these WP:NOTAFORUM kinds of comments are really irrelevant to the topic's notability. Volunteer Marek  16:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better sources - Poland wants to outlaw phrases like 'Polish death camps', CNN, August 2016, Nazi atrocities: Implying Polish guilt to become crime, BBC, Feb 2016. But you are correct, I will cease commenting on this.Icewhiz (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I think some of the confusion above stems from the fact that there were more than one spate of murders around the town and different sources discuss different events. Volunteer Marek  16:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Icewhiz provided a couple of good RS in response to Poeticbent. If I understand correctly, no one claims these accounts were fake. Given that, the pogrom was a matter of fact and sufficiently well documented. Is it notable enough to have a page? It does seem to be notable, especially since there is an article about it in an encyclopedia about Holocaust [32]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Icewhiz has produced enough reliable sources to establish notability of the topic. My suggestion would be to consider renaming the article to plural, as it describes several waves of violence that took place over at least three months. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per good work by Icewhiz.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination. Better sources have addressed my concerns, however the closing admin may want to move the article to plural pogroms or start a RM per several reasonable suggestions here. (Piotrus on alt account). --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Salbari. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

St. Xavier's English school, Salbari[edit]

St. Xavier's English school, Salbari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I've not been able to find reliable sources that establish that this school actually exists. Fails WP:V and WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The search link at the top of this page reveals one source that wasn't showing up when I manually searched Google. It doesn't really tell us anything about the school though. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Salbari. It can be forked later if WP:N and WP:V are established, when there is enough detail to merit a separate article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Salbari per standard practice for elementary/primary schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing about this school merits mention.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Critical data studies[edit]

Critical data studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not a notable field of research. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Discussed in Ben Williamson (24 July 2017). Big Data in Education: The digital future of learning, policy and practice. SAGE Publications. pp. 38–. ISBN 978-1-5264-1632-2., Stefan Selke (14 June 2016). Lifelogging: Digital self-tracking and Lifelogging - between disruptive technology and cultural transformation. Springer. pp. 63–. ISBN 978-3-658-13137-1. and several other works. New, but seems notable to me. Nominator seems to have totally ignored WP:BEFORE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the !vote above. Needs some rewriting for comprehensibility to outsiders, but that's just standard for academic prose. XOR'easter (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as has coverage in reliable sources as shown by Piotrus, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Keane[edit]

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

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

Article feels like an advertisement, and in my opinion doesn't make many claims for notability. The "Class of 2016" designation from Mix Magazine is about a shared studio space and not really related, as far as I can tell. Owlsmcgee (talk) 08:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--TM 14:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin, and we do not have articles on every person who has been paid to play at weddings.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Salbari. as per usual process for non notable elementary schools Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjarang Boro Foraisali,Salbari[edit]

Sanjarang Boro Foraisali,Salbari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced article about a primary school, and the only sources I can find are listings showing that the school exists, not that it is notable. Primary schools aren't notable, generally, unless they meet GNG and I can't find that this one does. Previously deleted per WP:PROD and recreated. bonadea contributions talk 07:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]