The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 F.E.A.R.. MBisanz ^talk 00:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of F.E.A.R. characters and organizations[edit]

List of F.E.A.R. characters and organizations (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)

Largely unsourced video game trivia. Lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Everything that needs to be said on this topic can be adequately covered in the appropriate sections of the series and individual game articles, but I frankly don't see anything sourced and worth merging. czar 22:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 22:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar 22:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article does not establish notability. The main articles can easily handle core characters in either summary style or very brief lists without causing any size issues. TTN (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This would be too much for an international best seller video game. No independent sources have been proffered, and I doubt any exist. Nha Trang ^Allons! 15:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: As much I disagree with all the merging of character list articles lately, I'm not seeing quite enough coverage to have this one as its own article, as I've found barely anything in Google searches. However, this should be redirected, not deleted. Deletion should be a last resort, per WP:CHEAP and WP:ATD-R, as well as to preserve the content for any future potential the article may have. The character section at F.E.A.R. works as a target. Kokoro20 (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet WP:GNG. Characters in a notable franchise doesn't make the characters automatically notable. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:58, 12 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scrivito[edit]

Scrivito (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 absolutely no explanations thus I still confirm it. SwisterTwister talk 22:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Obvious WP:NOTPROMO violation is obvious. No independent sources proffered, none found. Nha Trang ^Allons! 16:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The sum total of the article is "this is a company". Nothing even claimed regarding notability. There is an admitted COI by the author, and we appreciate the honesty, but you need to become more familiar with policy or use the WP:AFC system so you can get guidance. Farmer Brown (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Infopark where it's already mentioned. I'm not finding any sources on the product; but the company may be a target article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick glance at that article says it is ripe for AFD itself, so I wouldn't agree with a redirect. For instance, the large list of "customers", something that is normally not allowed, is being used in an attempt to inherit notability. I may send that one myself. Farmer Brown (talk) 17:33, 11 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Williamsburg Dairies[edit]

Williamsburg Dairies (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 an oddly formatted stub for three 19th century dairy farms in Idaho that I found while working through a backlog. The article makes no claim to notability that would pass WP:GEOFEAT, and searching Google and Google Books for the article subject turns up nothing but the self-same Wikipedia article. A Train^talk 21:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, you do see passing mentions in published books in Gbooks -- but nothing significant. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. All I could find was this self-published interview and this passing mention, not nearly enough for GNG. The editor who created this was apparently using Wikipedia to publish genealogy studies. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and only trivial coverage being found above. Since the farms do seem to have existed, perhaps they might warrant a short mention on the the page of the nearest Idaho town, or that county (I'm assuming Caribou County, Idaho). A long shot even that. Yvarta (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• DElete -- If this is about a place in Idaho, it is certainly NN. If it were about Colonial Williamsburg, I would have wanted to merge or redirect there. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 15 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Perez[edit]

Rich Perez (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)

Still nothing at all actually suggestive of the needed solidity and substance, there's essentially nothing else better. SwisterTwister talk 21:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weakish Delete; I denied the speedy deletion of this article on the grounds that there's a credible claim to significance by way of being inducted into the Nevada Broadcasters Association Hall of Fame and that it could be reworded a bit to step away from being promotional. I did that, and added in two refs in the process. But, there's not a lot to go on here. Never made it to professional baseball, as established at the last AfD 7 years ago, so no claim to fame there. Definitely exists with a fair bit of broadcasting experience, but the experience doesn't appear to be notable. Ok, 600 boxing matches called, but apparently no significant bouts that I can find. Broadcaster journeyman, I can't find anything to sustain a notable career, other than having a career. I cast about looking for better refs to support notability, but there really isn't anything. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

REALLY happy you have Rich on here, he has done so much and really people and kids need to know just how far he came to make a great career from athlete to broadcaster. He is a solid contributor to society see you tube, he has numerous interviews with the games greatest players. THANK YOU! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.201.196 (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable local sports announcer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No doubt he's a hell of a swell fellow, but there are hundreds of millions of swell people in the world who don't have Wikipedia articles. Just fails of notability. Nha Trang ^Allons! 16:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- there are so many Rich(ie) Perezes that searching for sources is a real uphill battle against swarms of Ghits. I know of two alone in NYC - one the husband of an old friend of mine, and one who is a local celebrity of a minister - either of whom could be more notable, but I think they're all run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia's inclusion criteria are not based on whether the subject is a nice guy or not — lots of nice guys don't qualify for Wikipedia articles, and lots of people who do qualify for Wikipedia articles aren't or weren't very nice. A person gets a Wikipedia article on the basis of reliable source coverage verifying that they pass a notability criterion — which local radio personalities quite commonly do not. If the article were supported by much more solid sourcing, I'd say that the Nevada Broadcasters Association Hall of Fame constituted enough notability for a keep — but it's not an inclusion freebie that entitles him to an exemption from having to be sourced a lot better than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- non notable per WP:ENT and better sources do not appear to exist. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 15 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Schiller[edit]

Marc Schiller (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)

Deletion was requested at BLPN by a user who claims to be the subject of the page. Meatsgains (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and I had actually PRODed for exactly this but it was drive-by removed by a user, completely ignoring the comments I made.... Nothing actually convincing, even if there may be a few sources here and there. SwisterTwister talk 21:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Based on WP:LPI (specifically the "Appearances and performances" section), I do not feel that he qualifies under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE as he has published a book about his story which was made into a movie. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm ambivalent as to whether or not we should keep or delete this article. Just thought I'd bring it to AfD to get other users' feedback. Meatsgains (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article needs work however. I generally go with the 'subject has requested deletion' and vote delete, however here there are a couple of things that tip him over to keep. Firstly as well as being the victim of a particularly vicious crime, he also pled guilty to a large medicare fraud shortly after. Making him both victim and criminal in a short period which was well covered in the media. Secondly, he is the author of two books. Had he not capitalised on his experiences (which to be fair, he is entirely entitled to do) I would just say delete. But its a bit late to be doing that once your life has been turned into a motion picture. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This article has brought out attacks against me based on ignorance and I would prefer it was deleted, so I could fade into obscurity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optiontrader11 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:LPI, The article indeed needs work but that is not a reason for deletion a we follow the notability guidelines. also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per User:Only in death's cogent statement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Quite aside from that I think the subject's passed a notability bar, and that not appreciating that the negative parts of your life (for which you sold a movie deal) are being publicized, I want rather more in the way of bonafides than a SPA's entirely unsubstantiated claims that he's the subject. Don't you? Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not sell the movie rights nor was I involved in any manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.107.41 (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Unless the assertions of notability in the article are in dispute, this person easily passes the bar. Sperril (talk) 21:10, 11 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 Speedy deleted G5. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vape Shoreditch[edit]

Vape Shoreditch (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 by SPA. Company lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not notable. Blythwood (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - brand new start-up of a company with under $500,000 in capital. Bearian (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Nothing notable about this company. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:39, 11 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 (nac) There is strong consensus that this individual meets the notability guidelines. Editor !voting delete does not help their case by voting twice. Vanamonde (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Petersen[edit]

Austin Petersen (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)

Nom does not believe page should be deleted. This is a procedural RfD to resolve repeated redirects. LavaBaron (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (Oppose Deletion, Merge, or Redirect) Meets our GNG. Austin Petersen has been the subject of focused biographical profile stories - dated before and after his failed candidacy - in the Kansas City Star, National Review, Reason Magazine, and KYW-TV. He has been mentioned as part of round-up stories by CNBC, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, Washington Times, and Washington Post. Previous issues with this article which resulted in its justifiable deletion - namely, it was sourced to a combination of YouTube videos and Libertarian fan blogs - have now been resolved. LavaBaron (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most of the information mentioned in the above comment is repeated stories already in the numerous deleted variations of the Austin Petersen article attempts. Since the end of the party convention Petersen has not been news-worthy. Bunco man (talk) 20:51, 8 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 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Redirect to Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016 as per previous nom. The articles cited don't add up enough to meet the "significant press coverage" requirement of WP:NPOL IMO. - SanAnMan (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you're mistaken. Biographical profile stories (not just incidental mentions), published in Kansas City Star, National Review, Reason Magazine, and KYW-TV substantially overcomes the 'significant press coverage' requirement of WP:NOL. This is established through wide precedent of other minor party candidates, see: Darrell Castle, Evan McMullin, Rocky De La Fuente, Ken Fields, etc. etc. WP:IDONTLIKEIT by Libertarian Party fanboys is not a reason to delete. LavaBaron (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 21:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:LavaBaron, I never said WP:IDONTLIKEIT, nor am I any kind of Libertarian Party fanboy. I made my judgment based on the information given, both current and previous. I may wind up being outvoted, but it is still my opinion, and whether or not we agree on it, I am entitled to it, so please avoid the personal attacks. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing vote to Keep, the arguments made by the other reviewers here speak for themselves, I am convinced. - SanAnMan (talk) 13:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per LavaBaron. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Petersen is notable by a mile, as Lavabaron has shown, and I'm hard-pressed to find a reason for deletion. Not currently Newsworthy does not mean not notable, especially considering that the subject was very recently newsworthy. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am not taking a position at this time. But I wanted to let discussants know that the article was expanded by about 50% in August, but the additions were mass-reverted a few hours later, just before the latest expand-vs.-redirect war started. For evaluation, this was the expanded version.--MelanieN (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Disclosure: I was the admin who closed the previous discussion as "redirect". The current version is substantially different from the version I redirected. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, we have editors like Bunco man descending on this page inserting claims sourced to non-RS like LewRockwell.com and "The Libertarian Republic" hobby blog. These were the issues that resulted in the previous article's deletion and, I assume, are being air-dropped into this article to pave the way for its redeletion by process of obfuscation of the RS. LavaBaron (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to Just a note, blaming my sourced information as being the reason Austin Petersen is not noteworthy enough for an article is downright silly. Deleting sources to articles written by Austin Petersen as not being RS is petty and disruptive, not to mention an attempt to hide the truth that Austin Petersen publicly opposes the Libertarian principles, thus not an actual libertarian (lower-case). Bunco man (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except in exceptional circumstances, sources written by a BLP are not RS for biographical facts on said BLP. LavaBaron (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Enough non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to surpass the usual routine coverage received by political candidates, and pass the WP:GNG bar.--JayJasper (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly has enough coverage (CNN, LA Times, etc.) to surpass general notability guideline. Other issues about BLP, RS, POV, etc. are editing issues, not deletion issues. Any concerns that arise outside notability can be cleaned up through editing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Easily meets WP:GNG with the amount of coverage as shown above. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are numerous articles about his candidacy and some networks still recognize his notability even after the campaign ended. Hamez0 (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He has become more notable that the article is necessary and needed.Suite1408 (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As the nominator of the two previous Afd's for this article which resulted in deletion/redirect, I am now convinced that the subject is a WP:GNG pass based on the addition of multiple reliable sources providing significant coverage.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this article is kept then the two draft articles (Draft:Austin Petersen and Draft:Austin Wade Petersen) should probably be taken to WP:MFD. I might do that myself, but I just wanted to note it here. ^Falling_Gravity 00:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FallingGravity, it is not necessary to take an abandoned draft to MFD; it will be deleted after six months of inactivity. If an editor continues to work on/submit the draft(s), then I could see a valid reason to nominate for deletion. As it stands, there's no reason to take up others' time with a (somewhat) pointless MFD. Primefac (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Petersen has been recurring on numerous shows and media outlets including multiple appearances with John Stossell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.151.51 (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The media attention ended when Petersen lost (third place). There is no new information or attention towards him, minus what he himself creates on his websites. Bunco man (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Voting twice won't likely sway the discussion or change consensus. Also, all evidence I've seen suggests that Petersen got second place though you seem convinced he got third place. ^Falling_Gravity 00:15, 16 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 procedural close – please discuss this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian D'Ambrosio (2nd nomination). (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian D'Ambrosio[edit]

Brian D'Ambrosio (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)

Still nothing at all actually convincing and he's not majorly listed at WorldCat, only 21 listings. SwisterTwister talk 20:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:23, 8 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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Van Le Ngoc[edit]

Van Le Ngoc (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)

Nothing at all actually convincing and I'm not convinced by anything listed at the other AfD, there's nothing to establish convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Coverage in Vietnamese here, here and here. Indication of Shanghai commissions here (cancelled for political reasons) and here/here; the latter would be expected to have some Chinese coverage. Brief but qualitative coverage in Telegraph; The Arts Desk; Ballet News; Guardian; Express; The Stage; etc. At worst, it's a TOOSOON case, but he has at least marginal notability based on only online sources, and I suspect there'd be significant coverage in offline sources. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep – Meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources. Perhaps more Vietnamese and Asian sources are available that I am unable to access. See source examples below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - Looks like there's enough in the sources linked above to satisfy WP:BIO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The Keep votes themselves are not even confident as they themselves still question whether there's the needed substance and solidity for accepting. Looking at a few of these found them to still be rather questionable. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – My !vote is confident; the opinion above is entirely non-congruent with my post. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the sources provided above by North America seem to me to enough to meet WP:BASIC. Vanamonde (talk) 05:54, 16 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ATrueChurch[edit]

ATrueChurch (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)

Nothing at all actually convincing and my own searches are not finding better. SwisterTwister talk 20:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it should be said that I just nominated this for deletion last month, and the first AfD was non-admin closed no consensus only 2 days ago Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ATrueChurch. As I said there, this is non-notable and largely self-sourced. I felt that it failed WP:ORG as well. WA Post 2005 article linked mentions it only in passing. Outside of Christianity blogs, it does not appear to be the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. I don't consider passing mention in the WA Post to be an adequate source. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the sourcing found in the previous discussion. Jclemens (talk)
  • This would still not be enough. SwisterTwister talk 03:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously you and I disagree if you're nominating it for deletion and I'm arguing that it be kept on the basis of essentially the same sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 06:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not quite as notable as churches such as Westboro Baptist Church or Dove World Outreach Center (even though I'd argue it's more extreme theological-wise). There's not enough sources outside of Christian blogs and the one Washington Post article (though there were some other articles about them, including one from The Tennessean, that have since been removed from the web). Because of the lack of third-party sources, I'd say delete this, but if more extensive media coverage about them ever comes about, it could be resurrected. NBA2020 (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 15 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 speedy delete as a hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kfar Yona Railway Station[edit]

Kfar Yona Railway Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I've not found any thrace on Google, Kfar Yona article says that there is no station, and this Israel Railways map (past and present) shows no rail nearby the city (between Netanya and Tulkarm, see OSM). Btw, in the lead text, I've not understood a fact: the station belongs to British Railways too... This AFD is just to clarify the situation. Dэя-Бøяg 19:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: the author, a new user named Itailevi44444, has a sp named Itailevi33333, that contributed to the same article. --Dэя-Бøяg 19:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I request a speedy deletion as evident hoax: I found the page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Itailevi00 and, adding this to what I wrote above, I have no more doubts about the vandalisms. Btw, users created also SYM Joyride 125 Evo and Haifa Symphony Orchestra. Both article look like valid. --Dэя-Бøяg 19:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as A11. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Per Israeli Railways stations list - [6] there is no such station and it's not even being planned. Clearly it's a hoax. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to let you know that I had placed a speedy deletion tag indicating that this Afd had identified this article as a blatant hoax -- but it was refused. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stupid policy that AfD has to be closed prior to making a bold actian. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 05:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not really policy, I think, because I've seen many admins take this very action. It's really luck-of-the-draw, I think, as to which admin happens to come along. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 10 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 Forgotten Realms deities. MBisanz ^talk 00:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hajama (Forgotten Realms)[edit]

Hajama (Forgotten Realms) (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 character article currently does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect back to where it was before. Jclemens (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. BOZ (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect to somewhere appropriate. No evidence of independent notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect back into the list. In fact BOZ I see where you were the original creator of the article and had it simply as a redirect until an IP editor spun it off. Also it looks the same spin-off was done for the entire Zakhara pantheon, see blue links at List of Forgotten Realms deities#Zakharan_pantheon RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 20:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 15 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 KBTC-TV#Local_production. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Full Focus[edit]

Full Focus (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)

Hardly any information so a merge cannot actually be an imaginable option, including also considering this is simply a local TV show about local matters, searches are simply not finding anything close to establishing notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to KBTC-TV § Local production, where this is already mentioned. Redirection is also appropriate because this is a valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Undecided The asserted multiple Emmy wins would make it notable... but I don't see any of those awards in a cursory Google News search. Jclemens (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to KBTC-TV Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to KBTC-TV. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 19:54, 8 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Church cantatas in Leipzig between Trinity Sunday 1725 and St. John's Day 1728[edit]

Church cantatas in Leipzig between Trinity Sunday 1725 and St. John's Day 1728 (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)

Fairly arcane and obscure subject, with very narrow geographical and chronological extent. No references or discussion of notabililty (WP:A7?). Specto73 (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• wow... I just started developing this, and will take some time. Did you see the ((under construction)) template?

As to the ground of the matter, the article is by and large about Bach's third cantata cycle, currently a redirect to a very short summary. I didn't want to change the redirect until the article was somewhat developed. I chose the longer article title because the period of Bach's third cantata cycle, between Trinity Sunday 1725 (= end of Bach's second cantata cycle) and St. John's Day 1728 (=start of the Picander cycle a.k.a. fourth cycle), also covers several cantatas performed under Bach's direction, but not composed by him, and also a few church cantatas composed by him but not part of the cycle (such as the new council cantata). On these cantatas there is of course extensive scholarly coverage, as well as there is biographical coverage on the "third cycle" of Bach's own cantatas, just give it the time to develop and provide sourcing. I'd rather not wikilink to it too much prior to covering the basics in the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In which case, the title, which played a large part in my nomination, is deceptive. An outside observer would not necessarily draw the connection to Bach; the title makes the topic sound considerably more obscure than perhaps it is. If you were to make the connections to Bach more obvious (at the moment the article consists purely of a table, hence my belief that it qualifies for WP:A7), so as to establish its notability, or to draw upon more secondary sources (so as to satisfy WP:BASIC), then I would, of course, gladly withdraw my nomination. As it stands, however, I believe that the subject matter, as currently expressed, is too narrow to be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. See: WP:NOTEVERYTHING Specto73 (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to move to "Church cantatas of Bach's third to fifth year in Leipzig", but am not sure whether I can do this as long as this AfD is open. Is a snow close possible? Or withdrawal of the AfD by the OP (as it is clearly going nowhere AfD-wise, and this is not the right forum for page name discussions)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Good approach, compares to second cantata cycle. The title, however, is awful, but can stay for a while if eventually it will by Bach's third cantata cycle. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Gerda Arendt. Nomination appears to be premature. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  WP:BEFORE C1, C2, and C3 suggest that 27 minutes is too fast for an AfD nomination.  The talk page is currently a red link.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I reluctantly withdraw my nomination for deletion. I still believe that the contents of this article, as currently expressed, are too obscure for inclusion in an encyclopaedia (WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:A7), and, furthermore, that this article does not satisfy WP:BASIC (all but one of the references come from one secondary source). I recognise, however, that I have a "snowball's chance in hell" of persuading anyone to agree with me on this, so, I suppose there isn't any point continuing with this process. I welcome the decision by the author to rename the page, and encourage him to do so. --Specto73 (talk) 10:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added the Zedler, Wolff and Boyd references who give general descriptions of this series of cantatas (the first two including "third cycle" tables comparable to the one now included in the article). If this isn't enough, feel free to add more specific references (I provided an extensive list of sources too), or add a ((refimprove)) if you think that would serve a cause. I also moved the page as discussed above, but don't know about procedures in case of a withdrawn AfD: I feel uncomfortable removing the AfD tag on the article – I suppose an admin will pass by for the formal closure? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - this topic will be familiar to anyone with even a nodding acquaintance to Bach's work, even if his cantatas aren't his most widely-known music. See WP:BEFORE. I do, though recommend to User:Francis Schonken that it's considered good practice to have inline citations to reference works these days, not just an ending bibliography. I've added some sources from Google Books as a start on this. Blythwood (talk) 16:48, 9 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. Consensus in the article seems to be that defining the scope of inclusion is difficult, and that the sources presented to try and push this over WP:LISTN refer to African American players, not "black" players in general. There are also concerns about the inclusion of players of Indian and Southeast Asian descent in here. No prejudice against the contents of this list being restored to draft space and used as the basis for a list of African American tennis players, as suggested b multiple folks in this discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of black tennis players[edit]

List of black tennis players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article title/subject is way too problematic: "black" in the context of the worldwide sport tennis is entirely unclear. How is the Indian tennis player Leander Paes black? In the same way as Venus Williams is? and what about the French player Jo-Wilfried Tsonga? I note that the one source cited actually discusses African-American players, so how it is supposed to establish the topic as worldwide is not clear to me. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; basically per nom. We could have endless debates over who is black and who isn't. This list isn't encyclopaedic and it isn't what Wikipedia is. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Where goes the line if you are black (or brown, white or yellow) or not? This list would bring ridiculous amounts of debates over that. Ilyushka88 | ^Talk! _Contribs 03:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources determine who is black. We go by sources not truth. If there are conflicting sources note that also. Otherwise it is arguing for the removal of any article that highlights black accomplishment (Black players in ice hockey, Black players in American professional football), is a step backwards. -- GreenC 16:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources? Sources of the players themselves declaring their "black" status? Sources of third parties declaring these individuals to be "black"? Or any source at all, including self-identifying sources, where these individuals are identified as "black"? Can you clarify please? It absolutely does not mean what you claim, by the way. The two articles you note are actually attempts to discuss the relevance of black individuals in the sports in questions, whereas this is an indiscriminate list of "black" tennis players and nothing more. Stop making strawman arguments, they don't serve you or your cause well. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable third-party sources determine who is considered a "black tennis player". There are plenty of third-party reliable scholarly sources that contain information about black tennis players. Verifiability not truth. -- GreenC 00:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Of course, one could just delete all the South Asian players that have been added here -- as some kind of coatrack -- and end up with a more viable list within Category:Lists of black people. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic passes WP:LISTN because there are substantial sources such as Charging the Net: A History of Blacks in Tennis from Althea Gibson and Arthur Ashe to the Williams Sisters and Blacks at the Net: Black Achievement in the History of Tennis. We have lots of other similar lists of black people such as List of black NHL players, List of black fashion models and List of black Nobel laureates. I was quite impressed by the case of Althea Gibson when I was working on Williston School and really can't understand why anyone could suggest that we should suppress such. Andrew D. (talk) 07:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure "suppress" is the right word. I'm also not sure how I feel about this list but I do wonder what's to stop lists forming about white tennis players, asian tennis players, jewish tennis players, hispanic tennis players, buddist tennis players, gay tennis players, tennis players who have criminal records, ... and what to do when people have mixed attributes (as so many do these days). It does have the making of a big stew and a lot of arguing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Suppress" is full of bad faith, but this is par for the course. Unfortunately the basic question isn't even addressed: what does "black" mean? Andrew Davidson should notice that one of the books he mentions is already cited in the article, and it's a book not about "black" players in general but about African-American ones; the same applies to the other book. At the very least "black" is a misnomer here. Drmies (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid the editor in question likes to vaguely wave at book titles as sufficient evidence to keep anything in Wikipedia, without ever answering the real questions. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Well... Drmies (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete once again, another unmanageable and subjective list, not worthy of an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The history of blacks in tennis is notable and needs an article. There is a two volume scholarly work on the subject Blacks at the Net: Black Achievement in the History of Tennis (the index has 100s to 1000s of names and countries). Incorporate the most notable players into the history article. For example Black players in ice hockey, Black players in American professional football. -- GreenC 14:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redefine to List of African American tennis players. I don't think anyone would disagree that this is a notable group of people. When you include other nations which don't have the same historical racial issues as the USA it becomes less clear.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the choice is keep or delete for the original article, I would say keep since the concept is certainly notable. Readers are mostly capable of figuring out the different shades of meaning involved in saying someone is "black." There are lots of other articles with the same issue.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Simply removing the problematic 2nd section section allows us to easily Redefine to List of African-American tennis players (note the hyphen), which then gives us a main article for Category:African-American tennis players. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Isn't it complicated by European nationals who are black? Easier to define the scope in the lead section criteria, rather than the title. -- GreenC 16:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, who has a white and a black parent, would not be called "black" in Africa, not sure about in his country, France. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thoughtmonkey and me are simply proposing we repurpose the list for African Americans. But I suppose, wider options are possible. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The major sources do not limit the topic in this way. Blacks at the Net: Black Achievement in the History of Tennis covers "identity and black tennis in aboriginal Australia, North and South Africa, the Caribbean and the Americas". Black Tennis Magazine covers "all news, activities, events and programs relating to minority tennis in all parts of the globe." Charging the Net: A History of Blacks in Tennis includes Hall of Fame players like "Evonne Goolagong, and Yannick Noah". We should follow their example as we aim for a global view. Andrew D. (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes I want to make clear that I'm certainly not opposed to that, either. As a Canadian, "Black" is not a problematic term for me. I don't see the need to delete, regardless. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• So we call it African-American and narrow it only to USA black players? That really sounds bizarre to me in this international sport. We use categories for that sort of thing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that these kind of lists are mostly better off as a series of categories. Then you can have all tennis players, men and women, all races, all nationalities, and any combination you like.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment what's the objective definition of black for this list please? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Clue: if we don't have an objective definition, then this list is pure original research. Anyone can be black, anyone can self-identify as "black", anyone can be "called" black (with or without justification). The fact that other lists have similarly poorly defined inclusion criteria shouldn't ever be used to justify keeping yet another one. For other "experienced" users to try that tactic is lame and they should know much better. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  We have a main article Black people which is linked to in the lead of a main list of lists, Lists of black people, and of course Category:Lists of black people. It's not like we're working from scratch, here. But of course the lead in Black people indicates what a shifting and nebulous concept it is: that's why I'd opted for Thoughtmonkey's solution. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll ask the question again, what's the objective definition of black for this list please? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  As you know, my preference is List of African-American tennis players. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The question was, as before, aimed at the general audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment what's the objective tennis criteria for this list? Any player who happens to be black? Players who have won a major championship? In the category, there are currently 50 African-American players listed. That's not worldwide, that's just the US. Do we include all of them? And what about players like Oscar Johnson, who was the first black American to win a USTA event? Do we include players from the old leagues such as the "Black Tennis Association", "American Tennis Association", "African American Tennis", or "Negro Tennis League"... or just modern Open Era players? So lot's to discuss other then the definition of Black. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that anyone notable enough for a WP article for being a tennis player and is black by whatever definition of that is being used belongs on the list. I mostly suggest leave this kind of thing to categories, but people like lists too. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, WP:LISTN has some good background on the questions of notability, inclusion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added Oscar Johnson as he's in the Hall of Fame and so quite notable. Note that I created an article for him too as there wasn't one, which is quite telling. Per WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN, this is one of the advantages of lists over categories - they are better for under-developed topic areas because they support red-links and so facilitate the creation of new material to fill gaps. Andrew D. (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andrew. That is an advantage of lists. Mr. Johnson's previous absence from WP might be partly due to the fact that tennis fans don't tend to spend a lot of time on their computers writing WP articles. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Black is clearly understood to be the black race, and we have articles that use it, such as List of black Nobel laureates and List of black astronauts, among others. The first black athletes in a nation do get coverage for their race. There are publications that cover notable black people in various fields. You don't need to add the word "notable" to the name of the article, its understood that everyone on the list would be notable and list the reason why. We have a List of first black Major League Baseball players by team and List of first black players for European national football teams. Perhaps something like that. Do they still get coverage for being black these days, like those on the List of black Academy Award winners and nominees, List of black Golden Globe Award winners and nominees, etc? I know those two things get coverage in black media. Dream Focus 00:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - another concern is what this spawns by opening the door. I see another was just created: List of Muslim tennis players. Is this also ok? I'm very worried about precedent with a list of tennis players that are Asian, Catholic, Buddhist, Hispanic, etc. (even white). It really could be endless. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel much the same. I prefer categories. However what you describe is normal for WP and lots of people like it and remind us that "WP is not paper."Thoughtmonkey (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The list of Muslim tennis players was created on 13 July 2016‎. It has no references. Is this something given coverage in reliable sources? Totally different situation than here. No shortage of space on Wikipedia, no reason to delete something that has references in reliable sources. List articles allow for far more information than a simple category. For things like this, I believe looking at the category is useless, since you just have a pile of names. This way you can easily look through what articles exists, and see information for them, to determine which you'd want to click on and read. Dream Focus 15:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  This was created 22 July 2016.... both by the same new editor. He has created so many articles that needed to be either deleted or fixed, it's hard to keep up with him, to be honest (though he is thankfully improving). Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after some consideration. The essential difficulty here is the inclusion criteria. While it might theoretically be possible to define this list as "tennis players who self-identify as black or with recent African ancestry," there do not seem to be sources to support this; thus the list is a hodgepodge of African-American tennis players, African-French tennis players, African tennis players, and a handful of other unsourced entries which seem to have been dropped in to make the list appear global in nature. Entries such as Mahesh Bhupathi and Nick Kyrgios are particularly problematic: we cannot make unsourced assertions about peoples' ancestry. The folks citing LISTN are off the mark, as the sources do not explore the topic in a global sense, only a regional one. An article that was List of African-American tennis players would be quite okay. Vanamonde (talk) 05:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTICE - the creator of the article was found to be a banned sockpuppet trying to avoid detection. So it should never have been created to begin with. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Drmies and inclusion criteria is not clear.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:48, 19 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 I think I am reading keep for Bradford derby and no consensus for the others. Whereas arguments have been made that these are too minor to be notable, also some sources have been found, and at this point is was not really possible to establish consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A62 derby[edit]

A62 derby (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 sources provided to show this to be a notable rivalry, and a quick google search doesn't bring much up either. Probably fails WP:GNG. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they also appear to fail WP:GNG

Bradford derby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nene derby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rushmoor derby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Aldershot Town F.C.–Woking F.C. rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There were a few other local derby articles that look a bit iffy, but these ones seemed fairly clear to me. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Bradford derby, per WP:NTEMP. Clearly was a derby match between two Football League clubs for about half of the 20th century, until Bradford PA went bust. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree - there are plenty of articles on the internet relating to the rivalry between Huddersfield and Oldham. You only need to read articles before the two meet on either club page - it's a proper local derby... only Bradford or Leeds are bigger rivals in my opinion, and that's coming from a Terriers fan.

A rivalry is a rivalry regardless of whether people supporting other clubs agree or not. But if we're going to remove games based on a difference of opinion, then by just browsing through a few on the list of derbies it is quite clear that there are others far more worthy of removal. For instance:

Milton Keynes v Wycombe - no history to it| Cambridge City v Cambridge Utd - not been played for decades| Cambridge Utd v Histon - no real history to it bar a couple of seasons in the Conference| Milton Keynes v Northampton - no history to it| Kettering v Rushden - non-league at Rushden have barely played Kettering| Milton Keynes v Peterborough - again, no real history to it| Dagenham v AFC Wimbledon - not aware of any genuine rivalry| Crewe v Port Vale - similar to Huddersfield v Oldham - not the main rival but certainly a genuine one| Port Vale v Walsall - again, aware of it - but no more notable than Huddersfield v Oldham| Nuneaton v Tamworth - local derby for sure, but more notable?| Shrewsbury v Telford - barely ever played, despite being obviously local| Bolton v Wigan - most Bolton fans don't see Wigan as one of their biggest rivals| Altrincham v Macclesfield - local for sure, but again?| Fleetwood v Blackpool - very local game and definitely a derby, but one with virtually no history to it| Bournemouth v Southampton - a local derby yes, and Bournemouth fans dislike Southampton, but it's rather one sided| All of these are no less worthy of removal - if we're going to be fair about it then we'll have a rather empty page remaining.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.116.131 (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] 

@86.129.116.131: if deleted, these derbies will still be listed at Local derbies in the United Kingdom. The question is whether to have a separate article on them- see Ilikeeatingwaffles's comment below --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If this gargantuan sentence had a decent in-line citation I might be inclined to vote keep: ((boxquote|Although neither club considered the other as a major rival until more recent times, with Huddersfield having more traditional rivalries with fellow Yorkshire clubs such as Leeds United, Bradford City and Barnsley, and Oldham with traditional Lancashire clubs such as Bolton Wanderers, Manchester City and Blackburn Rovers, a lack of competitive fixtures against these clubs led to increased significance and intensity in the fixture, particularly when both clubs spent a number of seasons in the same division whilst vying for promotion from the third tier. Otherwise, delete. 94.8.65.103 (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Bradford derby - article needs improving, yes, but this was a sizeable rivalry back in the day, and as Jmorrison230582 says WP:NTEMP applies. The rest look to be non-notable so delete the rest. GiantSnowman 07:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all - You may see this as biased on my behalf, but seeing as I wrote much of the original article I obviously oppose deletion of it. I also added numerous links citing (what happened to those?) that this is a genuine football rivalry. In my lifetime Huddersfield have always been classed as a rival of Oldham's, in my case the major rivalry alongside Bolton, and I've attended games at Boundary Park since the late 1980s. Attendances at both venues are often much higher than other fixtures, including when Oldham have played other local derbies against teams such as Stockport and Rochdale. To remove it and yet leave fixtures such as Bournemouth v Southampton, Blackpool v Fleetwood and, even more bizarrely, Plymouth v Portsmouth (which isn't even a derby in the true sense of the word, let alone a major rivalry), is more than a little baffling. DShamen (talk) 11:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - Not seeing any significant third party coverage to satisfy WP:NRIVALRY. Willing to be correct, particularly on the Bradford Derby, as sources for this are probably predominantly offline, but I'm not seeing much online. Fenix down (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This discussion has become a bit unfocussed. Please not that it is specifically about whether there is sufficient evidence to prove that the individual articles mention in the deletion debate are inherently notable, sufficient to pass Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline. It is not a discussion about the page Local derbies in the United Kingdom, nor is it a discussion about whether any of the rivalries exist, or that the particular sets of fans find them to be of importance. It is about whether there is sufficient, reliable, independent info to write an article that is more than a list of results. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nene, Rushmoor, Aldershot-Woking. I'm hovering towards weak keep Bradford but share Fenix down's concerns: the article as it stands appears to have only one reliable source, and the rest that I can find is run of the mill news reporting (eg [7]) or only brief mentions (eg [8]). It'd be nice to get an extra source or two in there! In the other direction I'm tending towards weak delete A62: it doesn't look like there are the sources to back it up but I'd be happy to be proved wrong? --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but improve all football goes beyond your Sky Sports package, your made in China ManUtd mug, and half Barca half Real scarf. If only people spent as much time improving these articles as they do attempting to delete as many as possible. If we agree these rivalries are legitimate and exist, then really we should be looking to improve these articles not delete them. To the bloke who wanted online sources about a rivalry dating mostly back to before computers even existed - well done. Otherwise let's just limit Wikipedia to the 4 rivalries everyone knows and delete half this website because we all know if it's not in 1.3 trillion articles in specific 5 or 6 national online newspapers it doesn't exist. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also to person who is attempting the myth that no history MK Dons v Northampton and Wycombe rivalries - not true whatsoever, fierce rivalry for well over 10 years at least now. AFC Kingston v Crawley has no history, because they're all Chelsea fans 6 days of the week. Also at what point do you say it's not notable? Nuneaton v Tamworth is notable if you supported one those teams. If they were promoted to the Championship would that suddenly make it more notable? It's highly subjective. If it's referenced it's a rivalry, simple as that. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but improve all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.119.85 (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on nearly all of that, bar your criticism of my comment on some of the derbies. I didn't say that they don't exist or are 'not important'. All derbies are important to supporters, players and fans of the two clubs involved. As for MK Dons v Wycombe or Northampton - no, I wouldn't personally class them as major derbies as they're fairly new. But they will obvious grow into one in the same way that Bournemouth v Southampton or Fleetwood v Blackpool will do over time. Removing local derbies because most supporters of big clubs aren't interested in them is the wrong thing to do in my opinion. These articles should be expanded on, not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.119.85 (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I wouldn't personally class them as major derbies - major is very subjective. I certainly would class it as major, as it's strong rivalry for at least 12 years now, and anyone who went to the derby matches last season you would know how hostile the two clubs and fans are to each other, the amount of police outnumbered the fans by about 2 to 1 at both fixtures. Flares were set off and several people were evicted at the Sixfields, and both sets of casuals were out in force. The return leg was about the only game the Dons players could've been proud of last season. Northampton took more away to stadium:mk then they usually do at home. Granted if you live outside the area most people would be oblivious, but the same can be said for Tamworth v Nuneaton or Huddersfield v Bradford. Doesn't make it any less notable, or any less deserving of an article than e.g. ManUtd-Liverpool. How far do we go with major? Prem only? Championship? What if one of the clubs or both get promoted? There's no way of measuring "major", so if someone has made an effort to make an article which referenced and we agree that the rivalry itself is legitimate, why on earth are we wanting to delete it?

I'm glad someone agrees with me regarding how we should go about Wikipedia. There a lot of editors who their main focus is to just reduce the number of articles and delete stuff rather than actually add anything constructive or attempt to improve it themselves. Look on my talk page and you'll see this is what is putting me off Wikipedia, I even had a guy complaining I didn't use the right citation format when referencing. When challenged I always raise a point "well why don't you add something rather than having a go at me for adding stuff" and I'm always met with the same stupid response of WP:BURDEN. What's sadder it's usually the more active "contributors" who just go round AfD debates going "delete" and challenge every source until they bludgeon the poor person who created the article into deleting it. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, it is subjective. Who is anyone to tell someone whether their team's rivalries are significant or not? I'm very aware of the rivalry between Tamworth and Nuneaton, in fact, and as a Huddersfield fan, even more so of the rivalry with Bradford! Both rivalries are every bit as important as Arsenal v Tottenham or Liverpool v Manchester United in the eyes of supporters. I strongly agree with you that deleting articles rather than trying to expand on them is a rather odd way to go about things on what is supposed to be an online encyclopedia - the removal of Bury v Rochdale (a very well known derby if you leave in the Granada region) being a strong example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.119.85 (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

86.129.119.85I (talk · contribs)@Abcmaxx: there are two key things we need to note though:

1. We do have a general way of deciding if something is important - we look at what has been published on it. The reason Wikipedia works, is that we require topics to have a certain notability, judged on whether reputable organisations, independent of the thing itself, have written about a topic. People know that if something is on Wikipedia, it has a little credibility or noteworthiness. If the site becomes a directory of all things everywhere, then it loses that usefulness. Google "A62 derby. It gets very few results (1508 on my computer), of which the vast majority are coincidental (eg not about the Oldham-Huddersfield rivalry) or mirrors of this website. The term seems to appear in passing on some message-boards and in three newspaper match reports - well below our standard for acceptance. A search for either "oldham huddersfield rivalry" or [oldham ahtletic huddersfield town rivalry" gets no results at all. There's very little evidence that the rivalry between Oldham and Huddersfield is any more notable than the rivalry between thousands of other professional clubs globally.

2. We have a more specific approach for football articles in addition to the above, namely that we presume that clubs, players or matches in professional leagues are inherently more notable than activities in semi-professional or amateur leagues. Of course 'non-league' rivalries are important in the eyes of their supporters, but we're not a website for the supporters of those clubs; we're a website of the world. For these articles I think that this does for the two Aldershot related derbies. It does mean that a well sourced article for clubs that compete or have competed together in professional leagues (eg Bradford, A62, Nene) might be valid - we have, for comparison, perfectly good articles on the Luton Town F.C.–Watford F.C. rivalry, the Severnside derby and the Cross-border derby, which have rarely or never been top-flight derbies. Indeed, the latter is currently like the Bradford case not a derby between two clubs in fully professional leagues, but due to its history as such and the strength of evidence of its existence is a good article.

Your arguments miss the majority of the reasons for deletion here - this is not about whether to have articles on lower league rivalries, or about (inherently) whether these rivalries are important to the clubs. It's about, first, whether the article is about a rivalry that has sufficient evidence of its impact and, second, whether the article is about a rivalry involving or previously involving two clubs in fully professional leagues. None of what you've said really responds to these concerns. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. let's just limit Wikipedia to the 4 rivalries everyone knows and delete half this website because we all know if it's not in 1.3 trillion articles in specific 5 or 6 national online newspapers it doesn't exist. - pretty much my point. Not being talked about as much as other rivalries shouldn't mean that a less known one should be rejected.

2. does mean that a well sourced article for clubs that compete or have competed together in professional leagues (eg Bradford, A62, Nene) might be valid - so my point is rather than delete it why don't we improve it.

but we're not a website for the supporters of those clubs; we're a website of the world - which should mean a website of all supporters surely. Also it's an encyclopaedia, and should be a comprehensive one at that, which means it should cover all topics even if they are somewhat more obscure than others.

3. whether the article is about a rivalry that has sufficient evidence of its impact - and you measure that impact by how many times Daily Mail has mention the words Aldershot-Woking derby? To me that's not really measuring impact of anything, that's just skewing stats to favour higher league rivalries.Abcmaxx (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we favour higher league rivalries. Of course we do. Just as we have articles on the players who play for Manchester United, Bury and Accrington Stanley, but not those who play for Droylsden, Curzon Ashton or Nelson. We favour these things because they are more notable and more important. And yes, our measurement of that is the number of times that these rivalries are mentioned in independent sources. That is how Wikipedia works: it is not a website for all topics, it is a website for all topics that are of notability - this is a core Wikipedia principle. Asking for evidence of notability is not the same as wanting to limit the website to "the 4 rivalries everyone knows", as you put it - as I showed before, we have plenty of articles on rivalries between Football League or former Football League teams.

So we come to point 2: the argument being made is that we can't improve these articles beyond their current state, because the independent published work does not exist. I believe (as I voted above) that it does exist for the Bradford derby and therefore we should keep this page, and may exist for the Nene/A62 derbies. However, as I have not found any evidence that it does - and no-one has offered it here - at the moment I conclude that while there clearly are rivalries between these teams, these rivalries are not of sufficient notability for an article. That is the only claim being made - your responses do not allay these concerns. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

they are more notable and more important - to you, but not to everyone. If I'm a Tamworth fan Id probably think the derby with Nuneaton is the most important rivalry there is, and a Stafford rangers fan might back me up. I think you forget what an encyclopaedia is meant to be. It's inexhaustible. A more obscure subject does not mean it's unencyclopaedic at all. If all we wanted is Premier League rivalries then people wouldn't turn to Wikipedia, or any encyclopaedia, because you look up things that you don't know, not what you can find anywhere. And you certainly CAN improve any article - all you need is a bit of effort and time, rather than putting all your effort into reducing an already shrinking Wikipedia. Also you seem to get muddled in your reasoning - you concede that these are real rivalries and they could be decent articles - however because your 10 second Google search doesn't really cut the mustard that leads to the conclusion that suddenly it stops being notable? Notability does not change, that's a core Wiki policy too. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that any of the rivalries are notable then please provide evidence to prove this. That is the way to end this discussion. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following was edit conflicted with ILEW's post above, but that is the much more succinct way of responding!

Either I'm not expressing myself very clearly, or you're misreading my argument. I'll try and state it again. The judgement as to whether or not these articles should stay is if they are notable. We judge notability of a topic based on its appearance in verifiable sources. This means that people have to have written about these rivalries, beyond simple news reporting. There is some evidence that people have done this for the Bradford Derby. No one has offered any evidence of this for the other derbies.

With regards to saying that these are real rivalries and could be decent articles - yes, they could be, if the sources existed which showed them to be notable. What I'm trying to say with this is that the following claims you're repeatedly making, despite evidence to the contrary, are wrong: (1) that we're only interested in Premier League rivalries; (2) that we're saying these rivalries don't exist; (3) that we're saying these rivalries aren't important to anyone. It is more likely that rivalries between bigger clubs will have been written about more, yes, but the inherent question comes back to this issue of verifiability and notability. I grant you that with regards to football, we have a specific judgement about the inherent notability of articles regarding clubs in the National League and below - but under the general notability guidelines that doesn't preclude an article, if sufficiently supported by references.

I've done more than a 10 second Google search, thank you, and either way the policy that notability doesn't change is a completely different issue. That policy reminds us that something may only gain notability for a short period of time, but if it does so then it's worth recording.

Nowhere in this debate have you offered anything saying why these articles should be kept according to our policy, or perhaps more importantly, according to the aims of an encyclopedia. I point you towards WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful." The assertion that these pages should be kept because the information is real and that it is important to someone is not an dissertation for keeping the pages.--Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've completely muddled your WP policies. WP:NOTEVERYTHING says that not all topics are notable; football rivalries ARE notable so that does not apply. Also on the one hand you say yes, they could be (...) notable, and these rivalries are indeed real on the other you try and make the assumption that if you cannot find an x amount of sources (given that the threshold for how many and what one deems to be sufficient is completely subjective as well) it suddenly stops being verifiable and notable. That is not how it works. I've done more than a 10 second Google search, thank you - prove it. If the sources existed which showed them to be notable - there's no proof to say that these sources do not exist, merely that no-one has found them and added them to the article yet. The general consensus that these are indeed real rivalries - well then surely that is just a matter of time before someone adds them. If we started deleting every article on the basis that articles cannot be improved why not just delete every stub article on here, we'd be left with about 10% of Wikipedia.Abcmaxx (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Football rivalries ARE notable so that does not apply"; No: football rivalries can be notable, if their notability is supported by reliable, verifiable sources. We do not keep articles on the chance that sources might exist; we keep them on the basis of sources which have been shown to exist. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep on Bradford derby, as it seems to be a notable football derby between 2 decent teams. Delete the rest as they all fail WP:GNG. Derbies between third/fourth/fifth tier teams are simply not needed. Joseph2302 19:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What an utterly foolish and contemptible statement to make. So if two clubs are promoted to the 2nd tier then their rivalry becomes important? So Blackpool v Preston was a forgettable fixture whilst in the lower divisions? The Bradford derby 'seems to be a football derby between 2 decent teams'. Can you clarify what on Earth that is supposed to mean? DShamen (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, utter nonsense. So if your team Norwich get relegated, you will suddenly have fondness for Ipswich then I assume? As if they stay up they'll be a "decent team" yeah? Abcmaxx (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly someone who knows very little about the history and tradition that creates football rivalries. He's completely contradicted himself in his statement anyway, and his opinion really ought to be ignored. DShamen (talk) 20:43, 11 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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Hut 8.5 21:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Tham (Youtuber)[edit]

Eric Tham (Youtuber) (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)

Evident self-promotion (page created by a user called "EricTham3"). Subject completely unremarkable; runs a very small and obscure YouTube channel, with no mentions in secondary sources outside YouTube. Specto73 (talk) 17:44, 8 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leukophobia[edit]

Leukophobia (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 find no reliable sources for this. All of the what-passes-for substantial content comes from a set of blogs and self-published sites, and everything else is from grab-bag "every word out there"-phobia collections. GScholar draws a complete blank except for metaphoric uses in social science contexts. One would think that for a real phobia there would be case studies at least. Mangoe (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I can't find any academic or medical works using the term online, except as a euphemism for racism against white people. It's worth noting that [insert term here]phobia is a common and accepted use, even in academia from what I've seen for unique phobias, so even if a case study or two were found, I don't think that would be enough to establish the notability of the term. I'll happily change my vote to keep if someone can find more than the handful of cases I've found of it being used as a euphemism for anti-caucasian racism, and at least one RS discussing it's use in that sense. But even then, the article would need to be entirely re-written. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While I'm sure this may indeed be a phobia, the fact that there isn't any reliable sources, especially those in the academic or psychological field, leads me to say this just cannot be verified. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge any suitably referenced content (if there actually is any) into Chromophobia. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change that to Delete - one of the sources within the article specifically disagrees with the definition of the term "Leukophobia" that the author of this article has used. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Exemplo347: what was the source and the disagreement? If you don't mind me asking. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it.

@MjolnirPants: The source given [[9]] states that Leukophobia is a fear of having a pale or white complexion. No fear of "white" (as a form of Chromophobia) is listed in this source and in my opinion, the case for merging the article with Chromophobia is non-existent. The other sources used in this article are unreliable which is why I changed from "Merge" to "Delete" - Exemplo347 (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no reliable sources, nothing to substantiate this. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is the article on Phobia Wikia that I copied off Wikipedia, so I don't care if this Wikipedia article will be kept or deleted, I'll leave it up to other voters. PlanetStar 02:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NEO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to chromophobia, a logical choice for a possible search term that is not that common. Bearian (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this is appropriate. That article is very problematic and conflates a lot of different subjects. From what I can tell in a quick literature search, there's nothing reliable out there on "chromophobia" as an actual psychiatric condition; it seems on the one hand to refer to issues of cell development on the one hand and aversion to use of color in deisgn on the other. Mangoe (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• del. Fails WP:MEDRS Staszek Lem (talk) 19:03, 12 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 speedy deleted G7. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nielsen adventures[edit]

Nielsen adventures (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)

Third party coverage for this corporate subdivision is sparse to non-existent and accordingly the subject fails WP:N. JohnInDC (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:I cannot find any coverage on this company. This is rather blatant WP:PROMO when the article includes a copy of the owner's business card:

The company logo

I have turned the image into a link. Non-free images should not be displayed outside of articlespace. Huon (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this should be Speedy deleted? K.e.coffman (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was attempted but an IP objected so here we are! JohnInDC (talk) 11:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This can be G7 speedied as I've userfied the content here. USA 01:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just to set the record straight, this is only the second time I've attempted to create an article, and both times my article has been Afd'd. How am I supossed to create articles when everybody wants to delete them? I'm actually an expert on this subject because I just went on a Nielsen adventures/Road Scholar trip last week. Yes, I know that's also a conflict of interest, but still, I've made my point (I think). USA 01:54, 11 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acsiopolis[edit]

Acsiopolis (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)

Meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NGEO. Also violates WP:CRYSTAL. ubiquity (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; I concur with nom. I was the one who initially PRODed the article. The tag was later removed by the article creator. I have to add Elismarie Botha appears to be Marketing Manager at Anaprop, the developers of Acsiopolis. Absolutely non-notable. See also The Leonardo (Sandton). Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not meet WP:NGEO, also is WP:PROMOTION and WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 19:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article about a building that isn't built yet.--Savonneux (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 15 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Boronski[edit]

Tyler Boronski (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 YouTube personality. No reliable sources, only sources are to own YT channel or one website which solely has a video by the subject - and the focus of that website is the interview subject, not the interviewer. Fails WP:GNG. PGWG (talk) 13:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. PGWG (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PGWG (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Was about to nominate this myself. Not only is there no third party coverage to meet the WP:GNG, but the main article creator/maintainer is the subject himself, who has not been following the WP:COI guidelines - his version, which I keep removing, is clearly written in a promotional manner, including inclusions of many links that seem to be there only to encourage readers to jump over to his videos/social media. Sergecross73 msg me 14:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. None are supplied in the article, and I can't find any myself for either "Tyler Boronski" or "Tbautos512". Kolbasz (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in an reliable sources. The page's only references are to his Youtube channel. Meatsgains (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete utterly fails GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 22:23, 8 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. J04n(talk page) 13:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian D'Ambrosio[edit]

Brian D'Ambrosio (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)

Previous AfD closed due to a lack of comments. The one keep comment pointed out that there were a lot of sources through Google news, but the issue with those sources are that none of them, from what I can see, are independent of the subject. 99% of them seem to be either about a book (which fails WP:AUTHOR), or is an article written by D'Ambrosio himself. None of which show notability for the subject.

The article fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:BIO. Aoidh (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I found some articles he wrote for Huff Post [10] and a review on ESPN [11]. I'm on the fence.--Savonneux (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ESPN Montana article isn't a review, it's a blog per their website and there's no author given and reads like a poorly written advertisement ("exclucively"?). Given that D'Ambrosio writes blogs for ESPN Montana it's not an independent source either even assuming that D'Ambrosio himself did not write that advertisement. Having written articles does not contribute towards notability at all. - Aoidh (talk) 05:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and I actually nominated the other listed at the side, I confirm everything I see there (3rd nomination). SwisterTwister talk 22:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still nothing at all actually convincing and he's not majorly listed at WorldCat, only 21 listings. SwisterTwister talk 20:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)^{3rd AfD} — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - Not quite seeing enough to satisfy WP:GNG/WP:BIO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Pinging participants in the previous discussion: E.M.Gregory & Carrite — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
•  Closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian D'Ambrosio (3rd nomination) directing participation here. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is about a journalist who has a book out. WP:AUTHOR generally is satisfied by reviews and news coverage of a writer's work. Here we have (1 March 2015) New biography by Helena author Brian D'Ambrosio helps Marvin Camel fight time, obscurity[12] in the Missoulian; (2 January 2015) an interview in a small town newspaper form which bio can be sourced [13]; (2 February 2015) discussion of his work in an article about Camel [14]; (10 February 2016) Biography Chronicles First Native American World Champion Boxer, A Montanan on Montana Public Radio with a half-hour audio interview [15]; and more on the Camel book in this search [16]. I always assume that using different keywords or different search engines would product additional sources. Before the Marvin Camel book there was this: (21 NOvember 2013) After wrongfully convicted inmate freed, Missoula writer has cause to celebrate, Missoulian, [17].E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you're citing WP:AUTHOR, I presume you mean the "has won significant critical attention" part? Otherwise, reviews are key for an article about the book, but insofar as they help the author I figure it's just a matter of WP:GNG. In either case, literally all of those are local Montana sources. They help, of course (they "count"), but we also need some wider recognition than "local author writes about x" pieces. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I am arguing that, as the articles I brought demonstrate, this journalist has had an impact. First, by bringing a "forgotten" boxer, now celebrated as the "First Native American World Champion Boxer" (source above). And for looking into what looked to him like a wrongful conviction and he got it overturned by writing about it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If he had the kind of impact you're suggesting, there would be the kind of sources that meet a notability criteria. However, there aren't. As an author the subject fails to meet WP:AUTHOR. - Aoidh (talk) 03:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete local reviews in local newspapers do not show notability for a book or an author, because they are basically indiscriminate -- every local author will get a review, and they are also unreliable, because the reviews are very unlikely to be objective. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 18 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Carr (historian)[edit]

Richard Carr (historian) (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)

Doubt about notability. Declined as AfC and later without further discussion published. The Banner talk 13:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. GS citations to his works tiny. Fails WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete as nothing at all for notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 23:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I added six published reviews (of two of his books) to the article. I think that may be enough for WP:AUTHOR, a lower bar than WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree that he does not pass WP:PROF; however, his books have attracted reviews and his research has lead to frequent news reports, and I believe that he meets the general notability guidelines. I added some references. By the way, any editor may move a draft to mainspace if he or she feels that it is ready, and the draft in question was improved by other editors between the decline and the move, so lack of discussion should not be a consideration here, only the notability issue.—Anne Delong (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Added evidence of recent notability to article. Enough public activity to keep.Climate2000 (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the sources are just of the type "Mr. Carr is saying something" with a reference to the job he is in. The work about the Veteran Tories is in fact his (published) PhD. It is nice that he is called a lecturer, but that is in fact just a little bit more than teacher, not even close to being a professor, as this article seems to suggest. The Banner talk 17:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the English system, "lecturer" is roughly equivalent to "assistant professor" in the US system: a junior-level position that combines both research and teaching. It is not the same as the teaching-only US meaning of "lecturer". —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, in doubt now. But can somebody fix this unsourced coat rack? In 2012 he authored the report Credit Where Credit's Due for the think tank Localis, with a foreword by Jesse Norman. As part of his ongoing work on One Nation politics, he has given two public lectures - the first alongside John Denham (politician), and the second an academic discussion of the historic origins of the concept. In 2014 he published a series of essays on localism for the Fabian Society with the public affairs specialist Dominic Rustecki, with a foreword by Hilary Benn.[citation needed] The Banner talk 21:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The Banner, I did what I could with that, removing name dropping, etc. But, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • How to destroy a positive attitude to improving the article... The Banner talk 22:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG, article reflects, thanks to references to reviews added by David Eppstein. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:NAUTHOR with book reviews brought by David Eppstein.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Although Anne Delong seems to be more preoccupied with WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, sometimes it is necessary to improve an article to prove the notability. Plain advertising or coat rack just prove the contrary of notability. But thanks to the work of others, I give the article the benefit of the doubt and withdraw the nomination. The Banner talk 07:02, 13 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley's Chicken[edit]

Kingsley's Chicken (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:ONEEVENT; no significant coverage in RS apart from that event. —swpb^T 12:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Fails WP:CORPDEPTH on currently visible RS sources. They're a significant enough local franchise in Canberra that's been round since 1984, but they never went properly national. There's this amusing sequence from 2010 -- though the Canberra Times stories are no longer online. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 14:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you say, none of those sources offer sufficient depth of coverage. The CityNews source is an especially trivial mention. —swpb^T 12:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete The other coverage I found is plainly routine like an armed robbery. Fails WP:CORP. If it was a national chain it might have some claim to notability but this isn't. LibStar (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a fairly well known fast food chain in Canberra, but is a local firm which hasn't attracted much media attention - searching the Canberra Times archives on Trove (complete text up to 1995) only produces a handful of references. Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 13 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 UK Independence Party leadership election, 2016. Redirected and article history preserved in the event she is elected. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Duffy (politician)[edit]

Lisa Duffy (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)

Fails WP:NPOL. Has only been elected at local level. Is currently standing to be the leader of a national party, but being a candidate is not sufficient. (I have no objection to the page being re-created should she become leader of UKIP, although current press coverage does not suggest that is particularly likely.) Bondegezou (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment As I said before, just think this is weird timing. She probably won't win (although she's second favourite by some measures, and woolfe may have missed the deadline) and if not will probably go back behind the scenes (as far as the press are concerned that is, she's not exactly a secret), but to make this decision now rather than in a month seems a (potential) waste of time. 79.74.22.25 (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the enthusiasm behind the creation of this article, but good Wikpedia practice is to wait for someone to become notable before creating an article. Any useful material can be used on the leadership article for now. Standard practice, as per WP:NPOL, is to cover otherwise non-notable candidates in election articles. If Ms Duffy later becomes notable, for whatever reason, it will be simple to re-create the article. We can sandbox the content for now to make that even easier. Bondegezou (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non notable mayor for a small town. If she becomes the "leader of UKIP" as Bondegezou noted, we can restore the page but that is unlikely to happen. Meatsgains (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - she is a noted politician. she is running to become the leader of the party. per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL is clear: when the RS coverage of an individual is only in terms of an election, then we cover their candidacy in the election article, not as a separate article. Her candidacy is notable and should, of course, be covered on the leadership article. She is not (for now) notable other than in terms of that candidacy. Bondegezou (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The RS coverage of her isn't only in terms of this election. While the previous coverage seemingly isn't enough for wikis notability on it's own, her & her family (one story for son, one for mother-in-law, a few for hubby, she has other councillor relatives too IIRC) have recieved media coverage on their own merits for the last ~5 years. She was far more notable than the average local councillor before standing (though the average local councillor barely gets their name in the paper at all ofc). Don't know how cumulative NPOL & GNG works, individually she doesn't pass either, but together? There are more media mentions in the last few hours, so...I dunno the process there. If we sandbox, are people likely to find that sandbox to edit? I didn't create this article, but think now we have it it only makes sense (if nothing else in IAR way) to let it be until after election. I see this happens a lot on wiki, article deletion debates on notability happening early on in notability whilst the subject is having RSs created about it. V is varying during the consensus process, I mean...it seems unhelpful to be debating notability during a media spike. Though if that NPOL is certain that no amount of this-election-related-coverage can count unless she wins, perhaps that doesn't apply in this case.79.74.22.25 (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Duffy is currently only known as a town councillor. Not even a county councillor but a town councillor! Standing in a leadership election does not equate to automatic notability. AusLondonder (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect to UK Independence Party leadership election, 2016, per nominator's comment above that "we cover their candidacy in the election article". This can be undone if she's elected. Qwfp (talk) 10:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect: Per Qwfp. But keep the bluelink. If she wins, then the article history is preserved. If she loses, pretty much same rationale if she later becomes notable. Montanabw^(talk) 18:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Already a notable politician in the UK. Over 10,000 hits on Google.--Ipigott (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. A person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate for the leadership of a political party — if you cannot credibly demonstrate and reliably source that she was already eligible for a Wikipedia article before she became a candidate, then she does not become eligible for a Wikipedia article until she wins the leadership. But nothing here makes or sources any credible evidence of preexisting notability, so for the moment she's just a WP:BLP1E who should be covered in the article that relates to the event. No prejudice against recreation if she wins the leadership, but nothing here entitles her to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that blp1e is for people who are nobodies until one media story about them (eg, clockboy), not for people who're of mild (but not quite article worthy) notability for years. She's got a few things about her, each of which, individually, are apparently not enough for an article, but she isn't a single event thing. There is a considerable gap between having no notability at all, and having enough for an article. I think people are blurring the understanding of a rule intended for individuals without RSs outside of being a candidate for something highly notable, and an individual of borderline notability & many pre-existing RSs standing as candidate for something highly notable. 92.26.143.240 (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as suggested above (there's not really anything to merge) for the moment. It's reasonable to incorporate candidates at the campaign unless they can show individual notability outside the campaign, and a redirect is more useful than a deletion at the moment. She doesn't appear to quite meet WP:NPOL#2 or #3, although she's received more passing mention (of her roles as a party director and campaign manager) in nonlocal sources than might be common for a local mayor. The argument for keeping that a couple of editors were wondering about is WP:NPOINTS, but having looked at a sampling of sources up to the beginning of this year, I don't think that it's quite met in this case (If NPOINTS were met, NPOL would almost certainly be met). Suggest for those arguing keep to provide a reasonable sample of reliable pre-2016 sources such as ongoing national news coverage of her mayoracy, or more than passing coverage of her roles in the party hierarchy, that can demonstrate her notability. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:NPOL. Local councillor status is not notable enough. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:49, 8 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) -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Rebel Legion[edit]

The Rebel Legion (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 has been tagged for notability since2015 but no evidence for notability has appeared. The only ref that is not an own-web-site link is a blog entry at starwars.com. This isn't notability as defined by WP:GNG. This looks very much like over-zealous fandom.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, As i am not native speaker (only filling in datas) i will aks the Public Relation Officer of our club to answer. But please notice that this club is a worldwide - charity - club, not an "over-zealous fandom".

please also take a look at the "talk" of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Rebel_Legion

Thank you! yours Leroni — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leroni Verderoc (talk • contribs) 13:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our notability is that almost every picture you see of people wearing Star Wars "Good Guy" costumes is one of us. We are nearly at 5000 members now and are in 42 countries around the world. We raised $650,000 for charity last year (mostly make a wish). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrTexas (talk • contribs) 17:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @MrTexas: That's awesome! Got some reliable secondary sources supporting your organization's notability? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doing Major League Baseball Games: https://www.facebook.com/Cardinals/videos/10154849454736840/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4snpmH3HLY http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/8067842/v101389783/star-wars-characters-celebrate-may-4-at-fenway-park https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60FL8-7uwkc "over-zealous" fan groups dont get invited to be main attractions at Major League baseball games.

Our Wookiepedia link: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Rebel_Legion

Mentioned in published books: https://books.google.com/books?id=uG0uCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT39&dq=rebel+legion&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-0IbK8ajOAhWM6YMKHUYdA3cQ6AEIJDAB#v=onepage&q=rebel%20legion&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=GfyICgAAQBAJ&pg=PA33&dq=rebel+legion&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvrLjg8ajOAhUI0YMKHU6GBeAQ6AEINzAE#v=onepage&q=rebel%20legion&f=false

An article from The Nerdist about us doing charity work: http://nerdist.com/get-to-know-the-charitable-side-of-the-501st-and-rebel-legions/

Our Facebook page with 120,000 likes: https://www.facebook.com/therebellegion/?fref=ts

If this isnt enough, let me know, I can find a lot more — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrTexas (talk • contribs) 23:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, facebook and wikia aren't going to count as reliable secondary sources. Please read WP:RS. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read it, Im not exactly sure what you want. If you have ever been to a comic con, or a parade, or literally ANYTHING that is a Star Wars event, we are there. I talk to LucasFilm on a weekly basis. I mean if you google X Wing Pilot or Jedi, every picture of someone not from the movies is a member of our group. Our costumes range from $500 to $3,000 and can take over a year to complete. We arent a Halloween costume group. If the 501st Legion is worthy of a wiki page, we are too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrTexas (talk • contribs) 01:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's ok to not understand. Wikipedia's rules are a bit...maybe considerably...arcane. Bear with me a moment (I'm voting to keep; I just want to explain). That a group is "there" at an event does not make them notable. That you talk to LucasFilm frequently does not make your group notable. That there are plenty of pictures of people in your organization does not make your organization notable. The cost in time and money to create a costume does not make you notable. Not being a Halloween costume group does not make you notable. As to the existence of the 501st Legion article, that is an argument to keep something because something similar exists on the project, which is an argument we do not use here. More information on that is available at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. With all respect, nothing you've said is a convincing argument that we should keep this article. The gold standard here is coverage in reliable media outlets that are independent of your group. WP:GNG covers this. I hope this helps. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject (example, more at [18]). It's a clear pass of WP:GNG. A huge amount of trimming of fluff, indiscriminate collection of information reversal, and pushing towards encyclopedic tone needs to be done, but this is not a reason to delete. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - though I'd be happier if there were more sources that didn't have "Star Wars" in the domain name. This Wired article may help: [19] Artw (talk) 04:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a noteworthy organization, and actively linked to the 501st Costuming Club (a fact noted on the latters page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balkris (talk • contribs) 14:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but remove all uncited cruft. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(I do not usually edit Wikia articles, apologies if this is formatted incorrectly) You may be having trouble finding references to the Rebel Legion's work because much of it is done with sick children and we sign confidentiality agreements. That tends to cut down on media coverage, but that does not make what we do less notable. However, I did find a couple more articles: Another from The Nerdist: http://nerdist.com/wondercon-the-rebel-legion-and-501st-legion-talk-costuming/ io9 rehashed the starwars.com article: http://io9.gizmodo.com/read-up-on-the-history-of-the-rebel-legion-costuming-gr-1714367742 If it helps, here's a picture from a check presentation to Seattle Children's Hospital: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-qTwGk8v/0/M/i-qTwGk8v-M.jpg The Washington State branch of the Rebel Legion raised $20,000 for Seattle Children's over a single weekend at Emerald City Comic Con in collaboration with the 501st Legion, our sister organization. This is pretty typical for what each branch of the Legion will raise at their large local convention, varying of course with the size of the convention itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.13.245 (talk) 05:09, 14 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 speedy delete, block evasion. Another Easter sock. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hallucination (2016 film)[edit]

Hallucination (2016 film) (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 film. Can't find any coverage in independent, reliable sources. Kolbasz (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 11:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Tried all kinds of research and searches, couldn't find anything substantial. Hitro talk 15:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Currently only source is IMDb, which is unreliable and could have been an entry by authors. Would also need to delete all the non-notable redirects to this article that were recently added.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm closing this. It's another SEFPRODUCTIONS sock. If you guys see anything with Paul Easter, Paul Terrance, or any of the other names in the SPI files on the article, just tag it as a block evasion. It's just some schmuck in England with too much time on his hands trolling Wikipedia. 05:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 tallest buildings in Bucharest. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 16:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BOS Tower[edit]

BOS Tower (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:GNG, per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Bucharest or List of tallest buildings in Romania as good wp:ATD. Create the list(s) as necessary. Like AFD outcome for various tall buildings in Barcelona not too long ago. Address similar Bucharest stubs the same way, by editing not AFDs. Eyes needed on nav template which called for creation of separate articles and needs to be edited down. Actual height of this building and others past number 26 in Bucharest seem unavailable, so perhaps don't make a table row for this one, just list in a section "Other tall buildings ", which redirect can go to. height is infobox in article but not in source for article, and there is a table row already.--doncram 22:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Bucharest where it is already mentioned. Not notable on its own. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Premium Plaza: I tried to look up some information about this building (and it wasn't easy). Anyway, here is what I found out:
  • from this site (the reference used for BOS Tower in List of tallest buildings in Bucharest) I got the address (Dr. Iacob Felix Street 66-69, but in fact it is Dr. Iacob Felix Street 63-69)
  • from these news stories I got the name of the developer (Immoconsult) and the name of building administrator (Premiumred)
  • from skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=10807487 and skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=11860629, I found out that the project was renamed to Premium Plaza, which is consistent with the information found above
  • the official site is PremiumPlaza.ro
  • here is the building on Google Streetview, in 2014 Razvan Socol (talk) 15:39, 15 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CPPSERV[edit]

CPPSERV (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:GNG, per several source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 02:52, 9 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Best In The House Tickets[edit]

Best In The House Tickets (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:CORPDEPTH, per source searches. The article also has a significant amount of promotional content. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Lacks significant independent coverage in multiple reliable sources. --Whpq (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- most of the coverage is from ticketnews.com, which appears to be a trade publication. Does not meet CORPDEPTH or GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:56, 14 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bionic Jive[edit]

Bionic Jive (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 appear to meet WP:BAND, as per several source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the article is likely all true, as this Billboard article confirms that the band were part of the Anger Management tour. However, it seems to have been written by someone close to the band in a WP:IKNOWIT style, and I'm struggling to find any other sources that might confer notability or back up the details in the text. Richard3120 (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not appear to pass WP:BAND at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:10, 9 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. postdlf (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of people to hold U.S. Cabinet Secretaryships for ten years or more[edit]

List of people to hold U.S. Cabinet Secretaryships for ten years or more (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)

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

A WP:INDISCRIMINATE list that also does not meet WP:LISTN because the topic has not been discussed as a group or set by reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is an indiscriminate list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Good-faith article probably created in the vein of List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by longevity, etc. but fails WP:LISTN. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Indiscriminate list and the topic has not been a subject of scholarly inquiry. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:51, 14 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. postdlf (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of euphonium instructors[edit]

List of euphonium instructors (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)

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

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

Does not meet WP:LISTN because the topic has not been discussed as a group or set by reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails WP:LISTPEOPLE and almost reads like a Yellow Pages of where to find someone to teach you how to play the instrument (WP:NOTYELLOW). Richard3120 (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The instrument, both historically and within the scope of service and brass bands globally, remains significant, though within a rapidly growing global population, increasingly difficult to identify experts in as the genre has not expanded proportionately. This is valuable information, and the page has a history in that it was created to separate this clearly desired information by some segment of the user community, from the page on the instrument itself, which was subject to continual modification to add, delete, or vandalize entries regarding both players (also extracted with a notability rule added that is being enforced) and this page for instructors. Deletion will simply bring back the issues with inclusion of this information in a page where it does not belong, as history has shown a significant number of people are intent on publishing it.--Rwberndt (talk) 09:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. For Wikipedia lists of people, on topics such as this one where the whole list is not itself both of limited size and sourceable as a unit, we should only list notable people (those with their own Wikipedia articles), but that would cut this list down to zero length. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- WP is not a directory. There's also some issues of a coat rack going on, with the institution linked but not the instructors (because they are all non notable). K.e.coffman (talk) 03:17, 15 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 02:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Veneziano[edit]

Giuseppe Veneziano (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)