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

The result was merge to Miss California USA. MBisanz ^talk 23:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Hogan[edit]

Brittany Hogan (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)

Hogan's closest claim to notability is having been Miss California USA. This is not enough on its own to establish notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Runner-up at Miss USA is pretty good, but it's not enough on its own to claim notability that meets WP:GNG. Unfortunately I cannot find any other info about her that would raise her to level required. Given that it's been over 10 years since her most notable moment, I find it unlikely that further sources will arise. CrispyGlover (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If found to not be independently notable, redirect to Miss California USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Didn't have a career after her runner-up. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reconsidered, appeared as a celebrity candidate in a TV show. (At first I thought, she would have been a normal candidate.) --SamWinchester000 (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:PSEUDO biography in a WP:BIO1E situation. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:Avoiding harm is an essay and has no apparent bearing as a delete argument, although I see elements of a merge argument.  As for the 1E, I suspect this includes the crowning as Miss California USA, the competition on TV in Baltimore, the year-long reign which includes publicity appearances, followed by some kind of a one-year role as Miss USA runner-up.  I see this as a merge argument trying to come out here, in spite of what is marked in bold.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge (keep until an editor decides to merge)  Runner-up as Miss USA passes ANYBIO#1, and I suspect Miss California USA would be the same as a state with an economy larger than most countries, but we are not required to handle notable topics as standalone articles, nor are content contributors required to implement merges from AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tami Farrell[edit]

Tami Farrell (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)

Ferrell is only really notable for being Miss Teen USA, but that is not enough on itself to make her notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep JPL's claim that being Miss Teen USA national titleholder is non-notable is disingenuous. Subject meets notability criteria and article is well sourced. PageantUpdater (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: passes GNG. Also agree with PageantUpdater that these mass nominations, which seem to not consider GNG at all, are very problematic. pbp 19:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Miss Teen USA is notable by itself. MB298 (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I am making my decision based on the fact that there is multiple secondary sources, and a controversy that tends to attract attention, and not on the possible tainted copy pasted reasoning that an editor is problematic. Otr500 (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristi Addis‎ - Miss Teen USA 1987 also up for AFD PageantUpdater (talk) 03:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above as a WP:GNG pass. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: passes WP:GNG with the Miss Teen USA win. CrispyGlover (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looks like lots of coverage.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Blair[edit]

Katie Blair (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)

Blair was Miss Teen USA in 2006. I do not think there is any indication that the winners of teen titles like this are notable, and no other coverage of her comes even close to showing her to be notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. She's had numerous pageant crowns, and was one of four stars of a national reality TV show. That's plenty. --GRuban (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep National Miss Teen USA titleholder, in addition to being Miss CA USA PageantUpdater (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: passes GNG. Also agree with PageantUpdater that these mass nominations, which seem to not consider GNG at all, are very problematic. pbp 19:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above: Comments; There needs to be a source concerning the otherwise OR MTV entry especially using it as a reason to keep. Otr500 (talk) 11:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have sources lined up, just haven't had a time to edit the article yet. Hopefully in the next day. PageantUpdater (talk) 12:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary autocorrect fail: can't should have been "cmt" PageantUpdater (talk)

• Keep: This one's national and a major pageant. Montanabw^(talk) 18:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Easy one, won a major title which covers WP:GNG right away. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristi Addis‎ - Miss Teen USA 1987 also up for AFD PageantUpdater (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above as a WP:GNG pass. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep won the title and then made news after winning the title, easily passes ArchieOof (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Pack[edit]

Natalie Pack (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)

At some level I wish we could keep all articles on female doctors. However, Pack is not a female doctor as far as I can tell, and clearly no where near being a notable one. She was in her 3rd year of undergraduate studies at UC Irvine in 2012. She might be in her 3rd year of medical school, although the interview I found with her from 2014 in a totally non-reliable source did not seem to suggest she was in medical school, it mainly spent time posting pictures of her in bikinis. Her role as Miss California USA is not enough to be notable, and her role in America's next top model, does not seem to cut it either. Her modeling career to date also does not seem to rise to the level of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment We do have this [1] from October 2013 that suggests that Pack had not yet graduated from UC Irvine at that point. So she would not have started medical school until 2014 at the earliest. More to the point it is the level of coverage we are getting, and despite its attempts to say that Pack is a notable model, nothing it says suggests to me she is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep; clearly notable. Honestly, I question whether nominator has done a single Google search of the subject. Just the first page of the first link under "Find Sources" gives:
  • Model Natalie Pack's Fomo-Inducing Instagram Feed Has It All | GQ That's from 2016
  • Instagram Girl of the Week: Natalie Pack - Maxim That's from 2014
  • Guess model Natalie Pack looks like Cindy Crawford, but wants to be herself Fox News, 2015.

I haven't even looked at the subsequent pages, these are three non-trivial articles by three national publications, over three years. And she was Miss California 2012. And she was on America's Next Top Model, a national TV show. Honestly: "I wish we could keep all articles on female doctors"? She's not a doctor, she's a model. Sure, she doesn't meet notability standards as a notable doctor. Well, neither does Barack Obama meet notability standards as a lawyer. Strangely enough, not everyone becomes notable as what they went for university for. That's not a reason to delete an article about someone who clearly meets WP:GNG. --GRuban (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: As noted by GRuban, passes notability with the three sources he's provided. Nominator (who's created over 2 dozen boilerplate AfDs in the past week) is too focused on the occupation of the subject and not enough on the sourcing of the article. pbp 12:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Given the information provided by GRuban. The coverage is there, and with exposure on ANTM, this to me would be a cinch to meet WP:GNG. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per above PageantUpdater (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above reasons, and the examples posted by GRuban.Glenn Francis (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per GRuban's sources. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above keep comments, plus a suggestion, given the nominator's boilerplate machine-gun AfD nominations of all beauty contestants -- nominations which cause the community a lot of work and checking -- and nominator AfDing articles without an ounce of checking beforehand, that administrators restrict his power to propose AfDs.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Mejia[edit]

Nadia Mejia (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)

She was Miss California USA in 2016. This is not enough alone to make her notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable PageantUpdater (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: passes GNG. Also agree with PageantUpdater that these mass nominations, which seem to not consider GNG at all, are very problematic. pbp 19:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a mass nomination. This is a single nomination of a single article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite obviously @Purplebackpack89: was talking about the other 60 or so articles you've afd in the past couple of weeks. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am not seeing how the claim that the sources pass GNG works. One source basically is "the daughter of someone notable won a local beauty pageant, and we only care because he dad was notable", notability is not inherited, and so coverage that is just about incidental actions of family members of celebrities does not help towards GNG. Others are from Diamond Bar sources, which is where she is from, and is the ultimate in local coverage. Another is a media interview with her. Interviews with the subject do not count for passing GNG, only articles about the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, not exactly. That Daily Mail article's pretty lengthy and all about her, not her pops. pbp 03:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto People --- PageantUpdater (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Miss Cali is not enough, as the nominator mentioned. The only other mentions of her in reliable sources are due to a flubbed answer she gave to a question in the pageant. Those sources do not, in my opinion, raise her to the level required by WP:GNG CrispyGlover (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources in article currently (sept2nd 2016) meet the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes GNG. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doba (dropshipping company)[edit]

Doba (dropshipping 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)

Business with no significant coverage - all the sources are either press releases, trivial or primary. The one exception is a single piece in Mashable, which is not enough to establish notability. - Bilby (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC) Bilby (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with nom. No significant independent coverage in RS. Even the single piece in Mashable is NOT an exception - that is an article about the concept of drop shipping and provides a trivial reference to DOBA in one-sentence as an example. MB 18:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as entirely PR information with PR sources for a company willing to have PR, none of that suggests substance. SwisterTwister talk 23:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PROMO and no indications of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated Liberal Arts and Medicine[edit]

Integrated Liberal Arts and Medicine (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)

A curriculum is not an entity for which even turning it into a redirect to the University hosting it can be justified. Delete as a non-notable set of course requirements. KDS4444 (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - non-notable academic spam. Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete 2 gnews hits, it's not normal we outline academic programs on WP unless they meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 02:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winnipeg city councillors[edit]

Donald Benham (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)

Jeff Browaty (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)

Ray Brunka (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)

Bill Clement (politician) (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)

Shawn Dobson (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)

Bob Douglas (politician) (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)

Delete. At one time, Wikipedia consensus accepted Winnipeg as a city large and notable enough to give its city councillors an WP:NPOL pass just for serving as city councillors, because it was a member of one of the classes of city listed in our article about global cities at the time the discussion was undertaken. However, consensus has now changed: Winnipeg is not named in that article as it exists today, and more recent discussions have established that it is not internationally prominent enough to retain "city councillors are notable" status anymore. Accordingly, the Winnipeg city councillors listed here are no longer appropriate article topics, as they have no stronger claim of notability and are not sourced well enough to claim WP:GNG instead. This affects a significant number of existing articles, so I'll be listing them in small batches rather than all at once. Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete These city councilors are not such in significantly major enough cities for them to be default notable, I would say the same for similar significance cities in the US like Des Moines, Iowa.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not meeting WP:NPOL; recent related AfDs closed as delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – @Bearcat and K.e.coffman: I didn't get a reply to my concern at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike O'Shaughnessy. Why would we assess the notability of a municipal politician based primarily on their city's "connectivity measured through 'advanced producer services': accountancy, advertising, banking/finance, and law"? Graham (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Graham11: I did not participate in the earlier discussions (around 2008 when some of the Winnipeg city councillors came for deletion), but my interpretation is that at that time these subjects were considered to meet WP:NPOL #1, due to Winnipeg being listed as a global city. Since then the consensus appears to have evolved, so that these city councillors are no longer accepted as qualifying under NPOL #1. So the criteria at this time is that they need to pass GNG for their articles to be kept. This does not appear to be the case, hence I voted delete. I hope this helps. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Graham, that's not exactly what's happening. The notability of a city councillor is always dependent on meeting WP:GNG through sourcing. However, if a city is in the global city class, then its councillors are extended a presumption of notability — meaning that the article is allowed to stand even if it's not in a fully GNG-passing state of development yet, because there's a reasonable expectation that GNG will be met even if all the necessary work hasn't actually been put in yet, and there's enough broad reader interest in the local politics of major world cities that a broad audience for the article can be reasonably expected. Outside of the global city range, however, there's much less of a guarantee that a city councillor will fully satisfy GNG and less of a guarantee that enough people will be interested in the article to keep the wikimodel working properly — I'm Canadian, for example, and even I can name some of the city councillors in New York City and Washington DC and San Francisco and Chicago and London, because I've heard of them often enough in nationalized or internationalized media coverage, yet at the same time, I couldn't name you most of the city councillors in the suburbs of my own city, because they don't get the same degree of extralocalized coverage. So outside of the global city range, a city councillor does not get an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, but rather their notability and sourceability have to be shown up front before they qualify for inclusion. Technically, any city councillor in any city has the possibility of satisfying WP:NPOL's "major local political figures" criterion if the content and sourcing are good enough — the only difference is in whether the article is allowed to exist before the content and sourcing are good enough (global cities), or has to wait until after the content and sourcing have already been shown as good enough (everywhere else). Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I landed here after puzzling through the Jeff Browaty and Mark Lubosch AFDs. My news archive search establishes tat each of each of these 2, and presumably some or all of the others, has had demonstrable impact on municipal affairs (stuff like public smoking regulation; bike lanes). There can be no doubt that have had more impact than most members of the New Hampshire legislature, and yet there are sound reasons for deeming members of provincial legislatures as a category, but not city councilors of cities below a certain significance. Where that border lies is always going to be fuzzy, (I have only been ot Winnipeg once in my life, and know little about it) and yet I have little trouble putting Winnipeg on the "too small" side of that fuzzy line, not least because pop. of metro area is under 1 million, but also because it truly does not have much of a profile in the world. I think that I would iVote to keep a city council member in a city this size if I found that he had played a significant role in shaping something local that became a model for other cities, or if he got even minor attention in the media beyond the region (and even then, only if the attention was for some accomplishment, not because he happened to have the same exact name as a British Prime Minister (I recently iVoted to delete the other Theresa May). I just looked at WP:POLOUTCOMES and it seems pretty good. Feel free to ping me if you think any of the pols on the list merits a closer look. Otherwise, I'm comfortable deleting Winnipeg city councilors with no claim to notability beyond coverage of their political activities in the Manitoba media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla Martell[edit]

Kayla Martell (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)

There is nothing notable about Martell. She was Miss Delaware. This is not enough to make someone notable. The coverage of her has nothing to do with her, and merely trivia. This trivia can be mentioned and is mentioned on the Miss America page without justifying having an article on her. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss Delaware as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Upon revisiting, keep. Meets WP:BASIC and not a WP:BLP1E situation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepRedirect probably to Miss Delaware, with a note about being the first bald Miss America contestant. Weird enough to mention, if not enough for a stand-alone article. Montanabw^(talk) 04:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC) Changed to KEEP per GRuban and WP:HEY, noted below. Montanabw^(talk) 18:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Miss Delaware, as above. Cavarrone 11:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She may have started her career as a bald Miss Delaware 2010, but she has made continuing appearances as an activist for alopecia, and a spokesperson for wigs, and continues to get non-trivial coverage for it: Fox News 2015; again; CBS New York 2013; Modern Salon 2014; Broadway World 2013 (not in depth, but does summarize her career since). The nominator's argument would be valid if she were Miss Delaware, happened to be bald, then went back to obscurity. She hasn't, she has continued to get coverage of what is now her career and her life. (Here she is as a spokesperson and volunteer: spokesperson; spokesperson;seminar; seminar; visiting a school; seminar 2015.) --GRuban (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment That meets GNG for me and so I am going to change my !vote to "keep." Good use of WP:HEY to save an article . Montanabw^(talk) 18:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: As noted by GRuban, passes notability with the sources he's provided. Nominator (who's created over 2 dozen boilerplate AfDs in the past week) is too focused on the occupation of the subject and not enough on the sourcing of the article. pbp 12:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above PageantUpdater (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above, clearly meets WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect may be created (and discussed) as a normal editorial action, but there is not enough support here for that to be an option right now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Furrer[edit]

Jessica Furrer (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)

Furrer's only claim to even marginal notability is being Miss Arkansas USA. This is no where near enough to make her notable. There is only one source, a source from the pageants themselves. This article is so far below the level of notability I hardly see it worth even being discussed. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2016 (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/2016 August 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss Arkansas USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- I'm not finding any RS for this BLP. A redirect is unneeded, as it's unlikely that the subject has been noted enough for the name to have become a valid search term. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sign of notability. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serdar Sabuncu[edit]

Serdar Sabuncu (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. Concern was Article about a football manager who fails WP:GNG and who has not managed a club in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the articles creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This wiki my first. Serdar Sabuncu Turkish profesyonel coach and profesyonel footbal culub Altay S.K. coach. look at please http://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageID=219&antID=8791 help me please. thanks FUTBOL KARİYER (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:GNG clearly not met; also hasn't managed at fully pro level Spiderone 08:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not managed senior international football nor managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentActually, I think that he seems to be notable having been assistant coach for three 2nd league clubs. However, the article is crap of course. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Adam9007 (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Limitations of Windows 10[edit]

The Limitations of Windows 10 (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)

Uneeded article, I don't understand why we would need an article for this. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Request withdrawn Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. All sources provided do not appear to be substantial enough to justify an article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Sri Sri Guru Viswa Sphoorthi[edit]

Sri Sri Sri Guru Viswa Sphoorthi (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 notability, unsourced, overly promotional BLP. MikeLynch (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nominator. Meatsgains (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• For a start we need to drop the "Sri Sri Sri Guru" nonsense and look for sources that use the guy's name rather than include the multiple honorifics (I've been told that some Germans with two doctorates insist on being called Dr. Dr., but three Sris really go too far):

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

That doesn't really get us any further in the search for reliable sources in the Roman alphabet, with just a couple of short articles in The Hans India. At the moment this looks like a "delete", unless someone less linguistically challenged than I can find some good sources in another writing system. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable, entirely unsuitable WP:PROMO content. No independent and reliable English-language sources found - both available Hans India articles lack author details and factual information. They read more like guest authors' columns for regional events than professional journalistic articles. Even if reliable Telugu-language sources could be found, the article would need to be re-written from scratch anyway. Almost the entire current article violates WP:NPOV and WP:V. GermanJoe (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant coverage.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• ′′′Don't Delete′′′ : Coverage in The Hindu since last 6 years check it.^[1][2][3][4]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.207.36.58 (talk)
  • These sources show only passing mentions, and do not contain in-depth coverage (at least a few sentences) directly about the topic (please read up on WP:GNG for more information). I formatted your message a bit for readability without changing its content. GermanJoe (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chike Kandi[edit]

Chike Kandi (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 WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no fully pro appearances Spiderone 12:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Big Brother Australia housemates (2014 series)#Priya. That other people have articles does not mean that this person merits a separate article as well. We need evidence that this person is notable before keeping their article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Malik[edit]

Priya Malik (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 do not quite see why this person is notable. She was a contestant of two reality shows, one in Australia and another one in India, and as such was mentioned in the media and interviewed a couple of times. Outside of the shows, she is an ordinary teacher without any claim of notability. The only two references in the article are the two interviews (which are btw primary sources). Ymblanter (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Restore Redirect and Salt: I made this as a redirect long ago while patrolling pending changes, because I saw no independent notability either. Looks like it has been made into an article and subsequently restored to a redirect multiple times. -- ferret (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable reality competition contestant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore redirect to List of Big Brother Australia housemates (2014 series)#Priya as quite a few articles link to the page.- Managerarc™ ^talk 23:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Priya is a very notable celebrity as you can see there is Prince Narula, Jasmin Walia who have been reality shows as well so PLEASE dont get rid of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.94.37 (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus appears to be that the sources, if present, are not enough to satisfy notability requirements. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Armani Versace[edit]

Armani Versace (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)

No reliable secondary sources. The only references included are either unreliable or primary sources. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable television personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete The only reliable source is not about the subject, but about the murder of his father (if it was his father). Plain puffery of a local hero who won some local prizes. The Banner talk 16:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep It has plenty of reliable sources and references on this article and it highlights authentic facts about Armani Versace. Please help to keep this article up for the national LGBT Community. I would love for somebody to actually help and do this article if they want in order to keep it up on Wikipedia.--Quanfrank (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Is very informative sources and facts about his career and yes that is his real father that was killed in Memphis tennessee the proof is in the sources at the bottom of the page--Quanfrank (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Significant sources that are cited correctly and accurate information that meets Wikipedia requirements for a article--Quanfrank (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note triple vote above is by creator of this version of the article StarM 02:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noted, and the duplicate !votes have had strikethrough formatting applied, as as standard for AfDs. —C.Fred (talk) 02:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keepif there is any notability to the Aurora Award. Having issues googling it. Otherwise it doesn't seem as if he meets notability guidelines StarM 02:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to delete, although I think there's enough to avoid an A7. I've done some googling and this appears to be the aforementioned Aurora Award. I don't think there's any notability to that and therefore attaining doesn't confer notability to Versace. Any non social media references seem to be false positives coming from the fashion brands StarM 03:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Nairspecht (talk) (work) 07:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Arjun[edit]

Sara Arjun (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)

It still looks promotional to me. Was deleted per G11 before. Please discuss. Nairspechtive Talk 16:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: My search results have insufficent coverage but he is only mentioned in some RS. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 17:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He? Methinks you didn't search. Methinks you didn't even eyeball the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The actress is an award-winning, notable person who has starred in lead roles for mainstream films in several languages. The article is sourced accurately with reliable references. Editor 2050 (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep When an article gets 500+ pageviews per day they have a following. Do I need to check for sources? No. References currently in article already. Meets the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ten references look impressive at first—until one follows and reads them. #1 is a short "lifestyle" type blurb that's at least primarily about her, but pretty thin stuff. #2-5 don't mention her, not even in passing. #6 is another brief "lifestyle" type blurb. #7 provides the briefest of passing mentions: "...while Sara Arjun’s Misha is irresistibly cute." Not a thing else about her. I would additionally doubt that it would qualify as terribly reliable. #8 does refer to an "Arjun" without a first name, but says that the individual named Arjun plays some type of auto driver, so I kind of doubt that it's referring to a five year old. It seems to be referring to some other "Arjun". #9 is actually about her, but is also a blurb and also looks to be written anonymously, so probably not terribly reliable for a BLP. And #10, once again, doesn't even mention her, not even in the briefest of passing. Before saying something is supported by reliable sources, always check for ref bombing. That appears to be exactly the case here. Most of the cited references don't even mention her once, and what remains is far too thin for any article, but especially a BLP on a young child. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Seraphimblade, have you never heard of WP:NEXIST? Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I have checked sources 2-5, 8 and 10, and contrary to what you are saying, Sara Arjun is mentioned in these sources:

  2. "Sara, the child artist in the film"

  3. "it is baby Sara who steals the show"

  4. "Baby Sara is charm personified"

  5. "Baby Sara is a darling!"

  8. "Baby Sara"

  10. "This film wouldn't be half the film without the abundant charm and screen presence of Sara who plays Tamil."

  Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 06:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I was searching for "Arjun". That's not even entirely certain, as I'm sure there's more than one Sara out there. Regardless, passing references by first name are very trivial mentions, those references certainly are not about her. Trivial mentions and mentions in passing do not contribute to notability, substantial reference material about the subject does. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just to add some FYI titbits here. She is known as "Baby Sara" because Indian cinema distinguishes between adult and child actors by this prefix ("Master", in case of male). So, while we are searching for existence of substantial reference material, we should go for both "Baby Sara" and "Sara Arjun". Nevertheless, like Serpahimblade mentioned here that the Sara mentioned trivially in these articles could be any Sara. Additionally, searching for news on Google about "Sara Arjun" or "Baby Sara" throws up sources that are much about the films she has played a role in. Of course, those cannot be considered "enough" to generate notability for a BLP. I also think it is technically too early (?) for the kid to have a Wikipedia article. But then again, what do we say about Gaten Matarazzo (he's received great coverage, though)? One more thing, Editor 2050 mentioned here that she has won an award. Can we have a source for that? We can cite WP:ANYBIO then. Best, Nairspechtive Talk 09:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - two of the many awards in 2011 and 2015 at the Vijay Awards. Editor 2050 (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep obviously. This article is about a very famous Indian child actor. We have multiple sources that tell us she is the highest paid child actor in India: [2], [3], [4]. And we have in-depth coverage in reliable sources, such as [5], [6], [7]. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Won already two serious awards for Best Child Actress. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted as G12 (copyright violation). — Diannaa (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Change Project[edit]

The Change Project (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)

Delete. Advertorially-toned article about an organization, referenced only to a single entry on the White House blog rather than to any reliable source coverage about it in media. And even that blog entry mostly comprises first-person commentary blurbs by people associated with the group -- so even if we accepted the White House as a valid source because White House, the content of the entry still tilts toward primary sourcing. Something like this might be eligible for an article if it could be written neutrally and sourced over WP:GNG, but Wikipedia does not grant an exemption from our content rules to non-profit organizations just because they do admirable work -- we're an encyclopedia, not a free public relations platform. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source something better -- but this isn't appropriate for inclusion in this form. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Tagged ((db-g12)) COPYVIO of organization's main page. Jbh^Talk 05:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jamila Awad[edit]

Jamila Awad (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 yet notable; the refs are the usual advance publicity for a beginning performer. DGG ( talk ) 15:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources also WP:TOOSOON. Meatsgains (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I concur, nothing actually establishes her own independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 16:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 18:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON; the subject is not notable yet as demonstrated by lack of sufficient RS coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kenner Star Wars action figures[edit]

List of Kenner Star Wars action figures (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 just a catalogue of toys better suited to Wikia. TTN (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Major toy line, quite influential at the time. Plenty of RS'ing for line in parent article Kenner Star Wars action figures, list is complete and substantially not individually notable entries, meeting WP:CSC points 2 and 3. Not likely to attract excessive entries. Why would we actually delete it? "Belongs on Wikia" is not a deletion criteria, and they can choose to have one there if they want one. Jclemens (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Lists of toys are excessive details that would be removed from any main article. There is nothing of general encyclopedic value in knowing the production number or in which model line the various toys debuted. That is the level of detail that belongs on a Wikia where such lists are more suited. TTN (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is your opinion, which I do not happen to share. Is there even an essay to back it up? Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Satisfies GNG in spades. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you provide some sources? @Catfish Jim:Hobit (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course I could. [8] is one, [9] is another. How about [10]? The nominator has been warned previously about spurious AfDs based on WP:BELONG.Catfish Jim

• Delete - per WP:LISTVERIFY - Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources and also per WP:NOR - To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. There are numerous wikilinked articles throughout the list, but none of the articles linked "directly support the material being presented", including Kenner Star Wars action figures.Keep - article now has references and GNG is met.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't a stand alone article, rather a sub page of that main article, but there are plenty of references out there. I've added three to the article. The collectors' market on these action figures is huge and people drop tens of thousands of dollars on some of these things... there is a lot of material out there about them. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is an article - Stand-alone lists (also referred to as list articles) are articles composed of one or more embedded lists...Many stand-alone lists identify their content's format in their titles, beginning with descriptors such as "list of" - Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines.

And as you accurately point out - The collectors' market on these action figures is huge and people drop tens of thousands of dollars...So in light of that, collectors that come to Wikipedia to read/research this topic and come across this article should be able to see sources that verify the content. Thanks for adding references.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a lot more work, but thanks. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep #1 the nom didn't provide a reason to delete. #2 there are plenty of sources [11] has a ton of books that appear to discuss the subject (I'm no expert on the different Star Wars action figures...) Hobit (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohit Rajhans[edit]

Mohit Rajhans (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)

Delete. WP:BLP of a journalist and film festival programmer, written with a marked advertorial skew and referenced entirely to primary sources with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him shown at all. As always, Wikipedia is not a public relations platform on which a person is entitled to have an article just because he exists; he must be reliably sourceable as satisfying a notability criterion to earn an article, but the content and sourcing here don't accomplish that. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not enough coverage in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After two relistings, no consensus has been reached. Of note is that "no indication of significance" could be interpreted as "non notable", but the nominator did not state the latter directly. Also of note is that at the time of nomination for deletion, the article did not contain "large portions" not in English (diff), although two image captions were not in English. The majority was written in English. The image captions were later written in English by a user who copy edited the article (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sigappunada[edit]

Sigappunada (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)

No indication of significance and large portions of the article are not in english. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relltechno7 (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC) Since i am new to wikipedia,I am trying my best to improve the articles,the above article is about the history of an old magazine.some words are in Tamil language cause the magazine title was derived from a tamil word for red tape.Talk to me[reply]

• Previous post posted at 2016-08-13T12:59:02‎.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @Relltechno7: Please append your posts with four tildes ("~~~~").  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see anything that's not in English, let alone "large portions of the article". Searches for the correct Roman alphabet spelling:

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

There is some book coverage of the legal case in English, but a search for Tamil sources (by someone less linguistically challenged than I) would be needed to determine whether the publication meets our notability guidelines. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  According to [12] an editor in 1983 was "lodged in the Madras Central Prison May 20 to serve a sentence after being convicted of scurrilous writing and contempt of court, ' Indian Express' ..."  This happened after a Supreme Court case in regard to accusing the High Court judges of Madras of corruption, at which time an apology was made and ten days later retracted.  One of the books covering this case at Google books is dated 1997.  [13] ties this journal to a restart of the journal in 2008 using a different name.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  Nomination has only looked at the article.  "No indication of significance" is WP:A7, an inapplicable speedy deletion argument.  New editors can't fix problems that either haven't been identified or don't exist.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep WP:SK#1 WP:NPASR  No argument for deletion, no WP:DEL-REASON cited.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus--Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Koyal Rana[edit]

Koyal Rana (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)

Does not meet WP:NMODEL, notable only for a single event. Article is full of fancruft. - Managerarc™ ^talk 22:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rebbing 23:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG - unclear that India Times is actually RS BlueSalix (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable breauty pageant winner.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This one is a national winner of a feeder pageant to Miss World, which is one of the 2-3 most notable international pageants. Plus she's done stuff since. Article needs work, but I think she passes. Montanabw^(talk) 07:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If found to not be independently notable, redirect to Femina Miss India 2014 as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there as winner of the pageant. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep national pageant winner. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss Texas USA. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kelsey Moore[edit]

Kelsey Moore (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)

Actually at first I just redirected this page because I had three editors tell me that that is what I should do with articles on people whose only claim to any notability was being Miss USA of some state or other. However, since someone reverted this action, I am now nominating this totally unnotable person for deletion. Winning a state beauty pageant title is a one event incident of the type that does not make someone permanently notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss Texas USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Northamerica1000. Montanabw^(talk) 05:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss Texas USA . (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Lanning[edit]

Lauren Lanning (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)

Basically Lanning shows us everything that is wrong with articles on winners of state Miss USA contests. First off, the coverage of her winning is local. While one of the sources from Houston is a significant paper, it is telling that we only have sources from Houston, this is local news. If Miss Texas USA was a significant title for all of Texas and if winning it was the key, instead of a hometown woman winning it, than we would see sources from Dallas and other places in Texas as well. I think it has now become agreed that Miss whateverstate USA winners are not notable for this. So where does this leave us? It leaves us with her being a local news broadcast figure for a few years, which is not at all by any stretch of the imagination enough to make her notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss Texas USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect (after delete) per WP:BIO1E; the subject is otherwise not notable. It's unlikely that she will be in the future. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss Rhode Island USA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leeann Tingley[edit]

Leeann Tingley (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)

Tingley is just plain not notable and the coverage comes no where near justifying having an article on this thoroughly non-notable person. Tingley was Miss Rhode Island USA. That is all, period. Her life since than has been totally obscure, and when she eventually dies her death will only be noted if her family pays for an obituary, she is so non-notable that not even a super local paper will write up her death on its own. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss Rhode Island USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BIO1E and WP:PROMO. The largely uncited content is advertorial in nature, such as:

• She is currently an independent contractor, with her own fully comprehensive styling and image consulting business. She specializes in multi dimensional hair coloring, and has created her own cosmetic line, LeeannNicole Cosmetics.

K.e.coffman (talk) 04:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Many comments on both sides are simply variations of "Meets / Doesn't meet WP:GNG and / or WP:NFOOTY" without expanding on the rationale. Only two editors supplied sources for discussion, and only one editor gave any sort of refutation. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fabian Benko[edit]

Fabian Benko (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 WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, as Benko has never made an appearance in a fully professional league (the cup match he played in was against a team in the Regionalliga, which is not fully professional), has never made a senior international appearance, and has no solid independent notability. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 04:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Benko is a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is notability. He has made his senior debut for the club. Regardless of opposition, the DFB Pokal is a fully professional tournament. It's the German equivalent of the FA Cup or Coppa Italia.Liam E. Bekker (talk) 06:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The DFB-Pokal is definitely not a fully professional tournament. The point of it is to include amateur sides from the lower leagues. A player participating in a cup match would only meet WP:NFOOTBALL if both teams are from a WP:FPL. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 06:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd argue that on two points. 1. He made his debut for Bayern Munich (a WP:FPL club) not the amateur club. 2. The notability surely lies in the stature of the competition and not the opposition? Liam E. Bekker (talk) 09:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Player still fails WP:NFOOTY, the cup game he played in was not between teams from fully professional league , Carl Zeiss Jena do not play in a fully professional league. Fenix down (talk) 06:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is notability. Besides his debut in the DFB-Pokal, there is coverage in the media: [14] [15] [16] --Jaellee (talk) 10:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how this is any different from the last deletion discussion, where two of those sources were mentioned. The third link is another minor, one-sentence comment by Guardiola on Benko. Once again, the DFB-Pokal match was not between two teams in fully professional leagues, and therefore are not notable per WP:NFOOTY. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Jaellee and WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - probably passes GNG - but people who say he passes NFOOTBALL are simply incorrect. GiantSnowman 19:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it passes GNG, there are very few articles, just like the last deletion discussion, and they all seem to be short and based off a short quote from his former manager Guardiola. A short comment on a youth player at his former club might become a talented player at some point in the future is not significant coverage. There are no interviews with the player, nor are there any significant articles summarising his career to date, which is to be expected, as he has not actually done anything noteworthy yet. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 08:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non WP:NFOOTY with far more GNG sources are routinely deleted. Article can be undeleted next week. Agathoclea (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Agathoclea's argument. Can always be recreated in the near future but WP:CRYSTAL Inter&anthro (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG with enough media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 16:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What media coverage? The few articles there are seem to be based off a short quote. Not much has changed since the last deletion discussion, nor have there been many new articles. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - not hard to find detailed significant media profiles of him. Here's one [17]. Nfitz (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As Fenix down mentioned about the article last time, this is not as much about the player in question, but rather an article on the wider Bayern youth setup/experience. "Benko is mentioned briefly with the article noting a couple of friendly appearances. This is not significant coverage, despite the fact that his name is mentioned in the headline." Secret Agent Julio (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Also to note is that the article has been deleted from the German Wikipedia after being created, as they clearly state he is currently not notable. Just a youth prospect. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non WP:NFOOTY - Modern Sciences (talk) 06:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep appears to meet notability guidelines, having played at the senior level for a pro top-level club, and having some media coverage specifically about him to boot. Together, I believe those two factors make him notable enough for inclusion. CrispyGlover (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His appearance in the DFB-Pokal is entirely irrelevant, per WP:NFOOTY. There is very little media coverage about him other than listing him as another one of Bayern's youth products. Which is exactly the reason why his article on the German Wikipedia was deleted. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - he has not been able to get any significant coverage from independent and reliable sources. As other users have mentioned, much of the coverage is nothing more than routine mentions. The article can easily be restored if he does make his pro debut. Spiderone 08:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for his cup match for a professional side. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is entirely irrelevant, as WP:NFOOTY clearly states that only matches between two fully professional teams make a player notable. The cup match he played in was against a team in the Regionalliga, which is not fully professional. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Agent Julio: I came along hoping to close this. I find many folks making this argument, but NFOOTY does not actually appear to say this. Where are you getting this from? A fair bit of the arguments here hinge on this point. Vanamonde (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is from consensus from a lot of AfDs historically. Often, young players will get their first appearances in cup competitions for experience. The way we apply NFOOTY there is to consider the relevant leagues the two competing teams were in. For example, in this instance, Benko's one appearance to date was against FC Carl Zeiss Jena, who play in the German regional leagues. A league appearance against this team would not fulfill NFOOTY given that the league the club plays in is not fully professional, therefore it is considered that a cup competition appearance against such a team, even if the other side is from a fully professional league is also not notable enough to demonstrate subject-specific notability. Either way though, Benko has failed to make a league appearance so far and therefore fails NFOOTY. There is still, as was established in the previous GNG, no clear wider coverage beyond multiple regurgitations of the same brief quotes by his manager. Fenix down (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Yes, even German wikipedia doesn't have article..That should indicate something? And for English, he's already listed here: List of German football transfers summer 2016 . External links will provide more info for those who want it.Fruitmince (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NFOOTY. Many of the keep rationales are inaccurate as just playing a cup match for a pro team isn't enough, it has to be against another pro team. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, has played as part of the official line-up of a top club in an official competition. If WP:NFOOTY does not consider that notable enough (but considers players who have appeared in third-level professional league games notable), that is a problem with WP:NFOOTY, not a reason to delete this article. —Kusma (t·c) 20:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, playing a few minutes in a 5:0 win against an ametuer team is not extremely signfigant, and does not make one notable. Being a minor match, he was substituted in as a test to gauge his talent (which is why he has not started/been on the bench for any more important matches yet). WP:NFOOTY prevents such minor appearances like this from being notable for a reason. Also, NFOOTY is an official guideline based off a long-standing consensus, this is not the place to argue against it. His article was deleted on the German Wikipedia as they understand he is just a youth prospect, who eventually may warrant an article, but not at the moment. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The relationship between GNG and the SNGs varies. In the case of sports, it's a limitation, necessary because of the very large amount of coverage people in this field get. DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per the WP:GNG claims which have gone uncontested. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Kennard[edit]

Georgina Kennard (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)

She was apparently interested in horse racing, but I fail to see how she was notable in any way whatsoever. Tataral (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Prefer merge to Anastasia de Torby or Harold Augustus Wernher. Opera hat (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Delete - The article reads like a family tree. Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Based upon reliable sources under her birth name, the subject appears to easily pass WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. She cropped up in the newspapers and on television from time to time as an associate of the Royal Family (this kind of thing). Her funeral was covered by the Court Circular in The Times. The files of the National Portrait Gallery, London have an entry on her. She only became "Lady Kennard" late in life, through her second marriage, so other search terms might turn up more (such as this from Country Life). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In fact, "Gina Wernher" turns up a fair amount. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invulnerable Coat of Arnd[edit]

Invulnerable Coat of Arnd (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 article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons or Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons), or, if that is not appropriate, delete. No evidence of independent notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons, as this was the original target when this article was first created as a redirect. The "Invulnerable Coat of Arnd" is a highly probable search term.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge per above. BOZ (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons as the most appropriate target. Jclemens (talk) 05:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh666 23:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J. D. Batton[edit]

J. D. Batton (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)

Prod tag was disputed. Lots of sources from Minden, Louisiana news as one would expect regarding a local official, many of them simple election-related coverage, but no evidence of wider and deeper coverage necessary for WP:POLITICIAN notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable local law enforcement official. This is not Louisianapedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Local sheriffs are not automatically eligible for Wikipedia articles just because they can be locally sourced as having existed — all sheriffs who exist at all could always be locally sourced as having local prominence. To qualify for a Wikipedia article, rather, a sheriff has to be extralocally sourced as having notability that approaches national in its scope. If coverage in The New York Times or the Washington Post could be shown, there would certainly be a case for inclusion — but if Shreveport, just 28 miles away from Minden, is the most "extralocal" coverage you can come up with, then that's just not enough. Bearcat (talk)
• Keep From Politicians notability rules: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. ... Meets notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.2605:6000:FB03:1F00:20B3:B764:E2DE:9A6D (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— 2605:6000:FB03:1F00:20B3:B764:E2DE:9A6D (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Every single sheriff or police chief on the entire planet could always claim to be "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" if the expected range and scope of local coverage were all it took. Which is why local coverage is not all it takes: the coverage is not "significant" enough to pass GNG or NPOL unless and until it snowballs far beyond the purely local. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." It doesn't require that the coverage be national or international. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For a person who does not have an automatic claim of notability under any subject-specific inclusion test, but must rely solely on the existence of media coverage as their notability claim, purely local coverage most certainly is not sufficient to pass GNG. Smalltown mayors do not get Wikipedia articles just because local coverage exists in their local paper. Outside of the extremely narrow range of internationally famous global cities, city councillors do not get Wikipedia articles just because local coverage exists in their local paper. Local neighborhood committees do not get Wikipedia articles just because local coverage exists in their local paper. Local law enforcement officials do not get Wikipedia articles just because local coverage exists in their local paper. Unelected candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just because local coverage exists in their local paper. And on and so forth: local-interest topics which cannot claim passage of an SNG by virtue of a specific accomplishment, but are relying solely on the existence of media coverage as the basis of their notability claim, do require that coverage to expand beyond the exclusively local. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is not your standard 3 line article for a local politician. The referencing is solid. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well sourced article. John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sock. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Local official with some 50 sources cited. Rules do not say sources have to be non-local. The type of local official is not specified in the rules. No mention of size of city or county either. Local sources perfectly acceptable.64.134.51.41 (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my DEPROD. Wikipedia does indeed cover subjects with local notability meeting WP:GNG because locals are clearly interested in this stuff and there is no limit on the size of the encylopedia. As far as I know WP:AUD applies only to institutions, is somewhat controversial and should not be applied to other topics. ~Kvng (talk) 14:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The standard for demonstrating that a person of purely smalltown local notability should be covered in an encyclopedia or not is not whether locals in his own town might care — it's whether non-locals, such as people who live 15 states away or in other countries entirely, might have any substantive reason to care. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not reading any of that in WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Both appear to be met in this case because there is significant coverage in reliable sources. There is nothing that says a local source can't be reliable. Is there somewhere else I should be looking? ~Kvng (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said local sources are inherently unreliable — but what local sources can't necessarily do is confer notability by themselves on a topic that would be expected to garner local coverage. Every mayor who has ever existed at all in any place on earth that has ever had a mayor would always be eligible for a Wikipedia article if purely local coverage were enough, because all mayors always generate local media coverage. What's necessary to get a mayor into Wikipedia, however, is evidence that they're more notable than the norm for some substantive reason, such as (a) serving in a city large enough that there's some broad reader interest in its mayors, or (b) being sourceable as having garnered more than just local coverage. It's for the same reasons that we can't necessarily keep an article about every municipal fire chief or police sheriff or city councillor or non-winning candidate for political office or pub rock band or restaurant or comic book store that exists at all, even though local coverage of such topics exists — if the topic doesn't have any objective claim to passing any of our subject-specific notability criteria, but instead you're shooting for "notable because coverage exists", then that coverage does still have to demonstrate a credible context for considering the topic more notable than the norm (i.e. the coverage expands beyond the purely local, or it demonstrates something unique and distinctive about the topic.)

Not all possible types of sourcing automatically cover off both "reliable" and "notability-conferring". There are some types of sourcing which are reliable enough to be valid support for content, but cannot in and of themselves be the GNG — and the purely expected level of local coverage of a topic is one of those types. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the bar is sometimes lower for WP:V purposes than it is for WP:N purposes. My contention here is that WP:GNG is met here because there is significant multiple reliable sources independent of the subject cited. To convince me otherwise you need to make an argument that the coverage is not significant or the sources are not reliable, not independent or not abundant enough (and you should try to use fewer words too, if possible, to avoid TL;DR problems). ~Kvng (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets Local Politician notability with independent sources of the subject. Has multiple sources at that. There is no requirement for "beyond purely local" in the Wikipedia rules. There is nothing about "notability-conferring" in the rules. 24.153.207.70 (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a person's basic notability claim does not exceed purely local interest, then yes, there is a requirement that the sourcing go beyond purely local. If local coverage were all it took, for example, then we would have to keep an article about every single person who ever served on any town or city council in existence — yet we restrict the notability of city councillors to those who can be shown as having more than just purely local notability, and we restrict the notability of mayors to those who can be shown as having more than just purely local notability, in both cases on the basis of either (a) the city surpassing a certain minimum size, or (b) the sourceability expanding beyond the purely local. And yes, there is a difference between sources that can count toward the conferral of notability and sources which can merely verify stray facts after notability has already been demonstrated by stronger ones — for example, an unsigned local garage band does not get over WP:NMUSIC just because the local alt-weekly printed a concert review of their show at the local Elephant and Castle, but once they've signed to a label and released a hit single and won a Grammy Award and passed WP:GNG for those achievements, then that same concert review can be cited in the new article as supplementary verification that their first ever show took place at the Elephant and Castle. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No valid reason has been presented for deletion, "Non-notable website" isn't really a valid reason - You need to explain why you don't believe it's not notable ... but anyway either way it's a keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Numbers (website)[edit]

The Numbers (website) (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 website Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While this article isn't much to speak of, The Numbers and its founder Bruce Nash are frequently cited in media coverage of movie box office results. See The Wrap, CNBC, and The Keene Sentinel (via the Washington Post), just from the last three days. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Metropolitan90: To me that just shows the website and its' founder are useful and famous respectively. It does not suggest that either are notable enough to warrant an article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 10:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep This subject and website is notable, it is quoted in many publications in terms of box office grosses for movies, it is perhaps only second to Box Office Mojo. Both are notable and cited frequently by the film industry and both are popular sites, they are both notable. I'm the author of this article. I vote Strong Keep. Neptune's Trident (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Numbers is used extensively as a source of analysis in reliable sources. Some of the sources go fairly in-depth about the methodology used to make market predictions, such as this source. The article is expandable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as covered in reliable sources such as the one identified above passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a boxoffice nut this site is great in that it actually has more accurate International numbers than other sites like boxofficemojo which, since it has been taken over by Brad Brevort, has really been unreliable (I was a fan of that site since the Brandon Gray days). So because its being used more and more as a citation for boxoffice grosses it only makes sense for it to have its own page. A little off topic here back awhile back I asked Ray Subers at BOM why the numbers on his site were always behind and he told me via E-Mails that We don't have the time to constantly bother distributors for International numbers. If they come in they come in. He also told me that if there as a discrepancy between BOM and Thenumbers to use the numbers since they’re able to nag these distributors more often than we are. Ryan Urban of thenumbers told me their International tracking is more accurate than BOM's in an E-mail he sent me (this was in regards to why they have a different number for Rogue Nation than BOM has) where he stated Yes, our numbers are accurate. We have more complete international tracking than Box Office Mojo. If you compare these two charts, you can see that we have international grosses for some territories that are missing from BOM's international total.

Examples: Indonesia, India and Mexico.

http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Mission-Impossible-Rogue-Nation#tab=international

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=mi5.htm

Slight variations in total box office for some countries between the two charts are the result of different reporting sources and exchange rates.

Thanks for you interest in The Numbers. We recently started international box office tracking and we are continuing to expand our international coverage.Giantdevilfish (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Numerically rather close, but unlike the "keep" opinions, several "delete" opinions assess the quality of the sources and are not substantially refuted in their analysis.  Sandstein  17:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blossom Ozurumba[edit]

Blossom Ozurumba (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)

PROD removed with the basis of sources but the depth of these sources show they are not actually substantial, and instead are either simply interviews, trivial coverage or other unconvincing coverage, I still confirm my PROD. SwisterTwister talk 17:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no indepth coverage from reliable sources could be found about the subject to establish notability. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 19:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable social media figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - hard to tell under all the promotional fluffiness, but there is one reputable mention that are at least semi-significant: [18]. The others aren't that useful, while on google I only found this [19]. Not enough for me to vote keep, but maybe someone else is able to search sources that aren't in English better than I am. Yvarta (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: By the standards apt to be extant in her home country, we have one clearly acceptable source in the article, plus the one Yvarta linked. I think it's got potential and worth pinging WP:Women in Red to see if they can salvage it. Montanabw^(talk) 05:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• leaning Keep: the article should be able to be sourced surely. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still rather on the fence, but will try and clean it up some, at least to get a springboard going. Might be in there awhile. Yvarta (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (weak) -- I would give this article the benefit of the doubt, hoping that it may improve in the future. The work Yvarta has done is helping already and there are some claims to notability for the subject's social media work. Given the poor coverage of non-Western world in Wikipedia, I think keeping this article would be a net plus. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. notability not sufficiently established. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment The name change provides more sources: an interview on HuffPost, interview, spotlight feature. Some of the sites look amateurish, but they appear to be legit and independent. Montanabw^(talk) 06:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets GNG, per Montanabw. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in addition to the sources presented by Yvarta, have found also 3, 4 and 5. Stanleytux (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - More than adequate sourcing to meet WP:GNG and WP:BASIC - particularly considering the context. Hmlarson (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Looks to pass WP:BIO with the sources in the article and those linked by Montanabw and Stanleytux. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To be honest, I would to like to actually hear the opinion of some Nigerian editors on this. I'm sick of this whole "third world, disadvantaged country" nonsense. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur and this will need to be relisted for better analysis as the Keep votes are in fact still not convincing how these are convincing for her own independent and substantial notability, not sinply social media profile attention. SwisterTwister talk 02:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on second thoughts. While the current version of the article is an improvement, the sources presented at this AfD do not sufficiently establish subject's notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep looks like there's enough sources to make the subject pass notability tests. Article can also be expanded further with those sources. IllinoisPolska (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This person looks like she is a journalist with a massive social media presence.Pyrusca (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails GNG. Many of the sources cited are not reliable, dead link or has casual mention. Appears to be a case of Wikipedia:CITEKILL. Following is what I found on quick search;

• Not a reliable source
• Primary source
• Not a reliable source
• Dead link
• Linkedin source. Not reliable
• Dead link
• Dead link
• This is a blog
• Not reliable
• I am not too sure of this, but looks like "placed" news
• This source does not even mention her name
• Dead link
• Casual mention
• Her name is mentioned along with others
• Casual mention
• Casual mention.

Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 00:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The analysis of the sources by AKS.9955 is spot on. Many of them are clearly not reliable or secondary sources. (GNG requires significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject). In addition I looked at the ones presented earlier

1. Huffpost interview Firsly an interview is a primary source. Secondly this is one of the HuffPost "blogs" which I tend not to trust after my encounter with a paid editor who was actually writing articles on HuffPost blogs and then creating a Wikipedia articles for his clients. These are apparently not subject to the same editorial standards as those by a staff contributor.
2. Trivial mention in BBC Sorry but this is a trivial mention.
3. Nairaland forum This is a forum which is not a reliable source at all.
4. Usergenerated content on Globalvoices Not reliable as Globalvoices allows anyone to publish on their platform, essentially reducing it to a user generated content/blog. Also an interview which is a primary source.
5. KonnectAfrica blog This looks like a blog and is essentially a WP:SPS. In addition, this is an interview again which is a primary source.

The smokescreen of sources deluded me at first, but on closer look at the sources themselves, I see that the subject is not notable as of yet. Hence, delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, still delete -- sources are insufficient for independent notability and somewhat of a vanity page. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Casual mentions are referred to. User-generated blogs pop up. Well... it's concering. The expanded analysis of the various articles cited as sources is troubling, and I have to agree what we don't have the truly reliable media coverage that we need for a biographical page. I also support deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. on two grounds: first, non-notble based on the analysis of the sources. Second, clear promotionalism. This manner of writing an "article" based on a multiplicity of very low grade sources is a standard technique of promotional editors, paid and unpaid. The real give-away, though is in the Early life and education paragraph: the emphasis on her early motivations, express in terms designed to make an emotional appeal, is the real staple of paid & unpaid promotional editors. You'll find it in the same place in thousands of articles. It's not a ring or conspiracy--it's a common trope learned from current techniques of advertising. We need to eliminate it from WP, and any article on an actual notable person contaminated with such stuff needs to have it removed; if it's too pervasive to be removed, it needs to be rewritten. She's not important enough to be worth the rewrite. rewritten. DGG ( talk ) 21:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kuroth's Quill[edit]

Kuroth's Quill (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 article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons or Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons), or, if that is not appropriate, delete. No evidence of independent notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge per above. BOZ (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons, as this was the original target when this article was first created as a redirect; highly probable search term.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per the above. Jclemens (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss Earth 2010. That other Miss Thailands have articles may simply mean that nobody has tagged them for deletion yet. This is why WP:WAX is not usually a keep argument. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Watsaporn Wattanakoon[edit]

Watsaporn Wattanakoon (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)

There is no real indication that Watsaporn is notable. She won a few not that major beauty titles, and is said to be an actress, although the article says nothing of what she has done as an actress John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]