The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J Barry Grenga[edit]

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

J Barry Grenga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not enough coverage in reliable sources to pass GNG or NARTIST. The only things I find on this person are social media like LinkedIn. He seems to be a student film maker and "Slow Dancin' Down The Aisles Of The Quickcheck" is a student film on YouTube. I see no evidence it won an Emmy or an Academy Award as claimed in the article. Jbh^Talk 23:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 00:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 00:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Based on expanded content these are "Student" and "College" Emmy/Academy Awards. Not notable but at least not an absurd-on-its-face claim. Jbh^Talk 00:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only thing he apparently ever did was being a producer for a short student film which was considered for a number of lower tier film awards. The academy award was a "Student Academy Awards" and he didn't actually won, it was the "bronze medal". He clearly does not pass WP:FILMMAKER with this being his only work. Apart from that there seem to be no sources on him in reliable - or any other - sources, not even passing mentions. Therefore he doesnt satisfy WP:GNG too. Based on that he is not notable and the article should be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 08:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is complete at this point. To answer some of the points mentioned he's 46 years old and not a student.

These awards are now cited in the article and are also --- PRE internet & received at the same time GOOGLE was launched --- insofar as the online records are not from 2 years ago and so easily recorded by google and bots. The academy awards are more cited than the emmys for some reason. The notability of the person and the film is it pretty much put FSU film school on the map as it were. Prior to this film and its concurrent Academy Award & Emmy Award that film schools' reputation was notable but still questionable in the eyes of the institutions giving the awards aka Academies of TV & Motion Picture. After his thesis film FSU film school "became a thing as it were" the awards ceremonies really began to pay attention to FSU film school after his thesis film, the reputation of the film school is due in no small part to the success of his thesis film. And Student Emmy's and Oscars are considered full tilt "Emmy" and "Academy Award". The citations are documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrcitizenx (talk • contribs) 21:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mrcitizenx (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC) — Mrcitizenx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Only awards awards won count towards notability. In any event student awards do not count towards WP:FILMMAKER. You need to show significant coverage in independent reliable sources ie newspapers (not student papers), magazines, books etc that demonstrates significant critical attention given to the individual not just to the film. See WP:NOTINHERETED. Jbh^Talk 21:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - we have long ago decided that producers are too common for automatic notability. I see no change in that. Bearian (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For your reading pleasure. As an Attorney / Professor I might point to a chain of logic and assist the discussion of inclusion of J Barry Grenga as "notable". (1) The want of online cit able references has been satisfied and the fact that these awards took place when Larry Page / Sergey Brin couldn't afford a cup of coffee should be recognized. (2) Awards that occurred last year will have lots of refs but these were 18 years ago. (3) This Producer's film was if you read the article - the first in that schools history to win a national Academy Award & the first to win both the national Academy Award & national Emmy Award. And the producers efforts in chasing Kodak execs for free film stock resulted in a film (the first in FSU's history to win BIG) this contributed greatly to the reputation of that film school. (3) With regard to the notability of producers as not being notable that is idiocy, if actual shit has an article should not then a Producer be so to given articles ??? And if the much lower on the totem pole script sup has an article so to then should a producer !

[ [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feces

Mrcitizenx (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The producer is notable because his efforts allowed Meryl Warren from FSU film school to very proudly make this POST.

05/02/13--09:15: Meryl Warren posted a blog post

Meryl Warren posted a blog post

"we won our first Student Academy Award, Slow Dancin' Down the Aisles of the Quickcheck "

The producer is notable because his Kodak hustle resulted in a multi award winning film & received accolades no OTHER fsu film had & the film industry kept an eye on FSU after this film.

aka [1]

Mrcitizenx (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The comment written above is unproductive & pure opinion and clearly indicates laziness on the com-mentor in that he or she has obviously not read the sources ............

In any event student awards do not count towards WP:FILMMAKER. You need to show significant coverage in independent reliable sources ie newspapers (not student papers), magazines, books etc that demonstrates significant critical attention given to the individual not just to the film. See WP:NOTINHERETED. JbhTalk 21:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

........... If you think Academy Awards and Emmy Awards and Screenings at Cannes "do not count" you are mistaken. Such awards count in every way to all those who are involved in that industry. Receiving those award opens doors immediately and --- quadruples --- your income coming out of a film school. This particular producer is probably one of less than 5 people in the world who've won both awards.

And also the cited page of notability standards does not in any way preclude shun or disregard student work.

Mrcitizenx (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Mrcitizenx: Please read Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. Blogs are not reliable sources. Please read Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. If there is not significant coverage in reliable sources (except in some special circumstances which do not apply here) then a subject may not have an article on Wikipedia. AfD is a discussion in which arguements are made based solely on Wikipedia's policies and content guidelines. Arguments which consist of special pleadings, WP:OTHERSTUFF, incredulity etc will have no effect on the outcome. There is one and only one way to keep an article on Wikipedia that does not have adequate coverage in reliable sources - find some independent reliable sources and add them to the article.

You should also read what it means to be notable by Wikipedia standards. It is a very specific definition and it centers around what reliable sources exist to write and verify and article. It really has nothing to do with real world achievement and deleting an article is not making a value judgement on a person's accomplishments. Wikipedia exists only to document what secondary sources have already talked about.

You also may want to read this brief tutorial on editing talk pages. So you can properly format your comments. (Please click through the blue links. Those terms are used in particular ways on Wikipedia and the links explain in more detail.) Jbh^Talk 00:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete When someone's top claim to fame is being the Producer of a student film on YouTube they are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a counterpoint to your argument of this producer not being notable & evidence of the wikipedia admins' process as deeply deeply flawed as to notability I put forth this person whom I randomly googled and found has a bio article and is not notable, as to your definitions (do fake tech projects and references leading to nowhere make one NOTABLE ???). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Clarke_(computer_scientist) This person and purported and so called (?computer scientist?) is very much less notable, uses blogs as references and clearly created his own page. So the definitions of notability must be then, applied equally. If Ian Clarke is not notable and has an article, then so to the producer in question, should as well.Mrcitizenx (talk) 01:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I am sorry but you are simply wasting your time making arguements like this. Wikipedia even has a term for it WP:OTHERSTUFF and such arguements are simply ignored. Also, please properly format and thread your responses Approval means nothing and continually breaking the threading makes it hard for others to follow the conversation. I gave you a link to a one page tutorial, please read it. If you, as I assume, want to !vote to keep then change your first comment to a bold Keep. As I said before - find and cite sources about the person not the film. Editors here are willing to change their minds and !votes. But they must be convinced with good sources - nothing else, just good sources. Jbh^Talk 01:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The producer made the film when Al Gore invented the internet 18 years ago. Most sources being so old 18 years are not recorded online. The sources that could be found have been found. The film was made by the producer so the sources for the film are for the producer. I could contact the two Academies and procure official documentation and embed them in the article I suppose but this seems drastic. The article itself could be re titled to that of the film but this seems less relevant. As experienced admins you'll have to simply make a call "noteworthy enough or not" ! Obviously I wrote article my first so my position is keep ! Mrcitizenx (talk) 04:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wikipedia rules & guidelines themselves state J Barry Grenga as Producer is noteworthy & an article appropriate. Section "People notable for only one event" as stated by WP:SINGLEEVENT and I quote states "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate". And the first Academy Award & first Academy Award & Emmy Award combination for that film school, is "highly significant". Therefore according to the rules & guidelines of Wikipedia I ask for termination of the deletion request. Mrcitizenx (talk) 04:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not pass GNG, nor I didn't find those local awards noteworthy. I also tried Wikipedia:Notability (people) and the outcome was not his notability! Sorry, maybe it's too soon. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is apparently a person notable for only one event. According to his IMDb entry, he produced an award-winning student film 17 years ago, but has no other film or television credits before or since. The article gives no indication about what he has done since 1999 -- whether he stayed in the film industry or pursued some other profession -- nor do any of the sources focus specifically upon Grenga as opposed to the film or other personnel of it. (By contrast, this source used in the article at least has three paragraphs of biography of the film's lead actor. I haven't found anything comparable about Grenga himself.) This is not meant to be a slam at Grenga or at the film (which I actually saw myself at the time in a showcase of films being considered for the Student Academy Awards). And saying that the film is a "YouTube" film is misleading because the film was made a few years before YouTube existed, and merely happened to be uploaded later on. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 11:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not even close to passing GNG. And by god, what does a producer on a student film do anyway? Order the pizza? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see a bunch of non-RS sources (IMDb, LinkedIn), some student awards, and press releases from the subject's alma mater. Fails WP:FILMMAKER as noted by jbh. For the record I was brought here by a bunch of drama-ful complaining about this AfD on COIN. It comes as no surprise that the complainant says here he is an attorney. - Brianhe (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While this person may be notable in the eyes of the people who created this article, he's not notable as that term is defined in our rules. There's no evidence on the page, as it currently stands, of significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. I can find none with an admittedly less-than-exhaustive bit of googling, either.
  It's regrettable that the folks who created the article have taken offense at this analysis; they'retheir contentions about the notability of this person are, no doubt, asserted in good faith. And our rules can be inscrutable to new editors. But that's not sufficient reason to keep this article. David in DC (talk) 19:40, 18 October 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 At the End of My Leash. Redirecting to At the End of My Leash, where he is briefly mentioned. Someone might want to expand his information there, to the extent that it can be sourced. MelanieN (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Pattison[edit]

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

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

Unsourced biography with no tangible assertion of importance. Warning: may contain COI. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: to At the End of My Leash, the t.v. show he appeared on for six seasons. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Safehaven. A person does not automatically qualify for a standalone WP:BLP just for being on a reality show, or for writing a couple of books, if the resulting article is unsourced. The show already has an article, so briefly mentioning him there is appropriate to the context of his notability, but we don't need an article about the show and a separate BLP of him if that separate BLP is this badly sourced. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per WP:SNOW and WP:OUTCOMES. Sysops, please let's close this debate and move on to the rest of the backlog. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 20 October 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 cities in India by nicknames. MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities and towns in Andhra Pradesh by nicknames[edit]

List of cities and towns in Andhra Pradesh by nicknames (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 my ability to even sadly depleted. A list of towns in an arbitrary area, y "nickname" (i.e. marketing slogan). Guy (Help!) 23:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've created this article, this is only to know the nicknames of cities and towns at one place like List of cities in India by nicknames, if other users upon expressing their views find the consensus to be deleted. I accept it.--Vin09 (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Is OR, non-notable trivia and advertising. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of cities in India by nicknames: It may sound like a 'marketing slogan' (to few/many people) but is not. All contents of the article are reliably sourced, and it was created by a long-term standing editor. I, however, fail to understand the need for a standalone piece when a similar topic already existed (with plenty of space).

I do not intend to invoke wp:otherstuffsexist; but we already have many similar articles, at least, 50 alone for the United States.

• List of city nicknames in the United States and Category:Lists of city nicknames by U.S. state.

Should I call it a classic example of WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS? Anup [Talk] 18:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of cities in India by nicknames. I did not know that the latter existed, but since it does and it's not at AfD then this page should be merged there. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 17 October 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. The problem with this AfD is that many people on both sides approach it not from a policy perspective (has this topic sufficient coverage in reliable sources for an article?), but from a political perspective (is this as politically significant as the Republican opposition to Donald Trump?). That's not to say that this is not a valid approach - after all, the perceived significance of an event does factor into our decision about whether to cover something at the article level. But it means I can't easily weigh the strength of the arguments. Nonetheless, I see only two "keep"s that make a cogent argument based on political significance, and one "keep" that argues that "this gives a perspective that there is an equivalent to the Trump-opposition", which is not anything that I recognize as a valid argument in terms of our policies. This gives us a reasonably solid consensus for "delete". I have to discount the two inscrutable "support" votes, but if they had to be counted I'd guess that they meant to support the nomination for deletion.  Sandstein  08:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Democrats opposing Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016[edit]

List of Democrats opposing Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete This is an attempt to create a false equalivence and has now been made into mostly Democrats who are celebrities endorsing Jill Stein. This appears to be created solely to counter the Republicans who Oppose Donald Trump article. There appears to be people who are not notable who have been included, and it seems as if this should be deleted.Theoallen1 (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --Varavour (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you support deletion or keeping the article? Please use words such as Delete or KeepTheoallen1 (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's not as notable a phenomenon, but is noticed in parts of "coal country" on the one and some anti-war or anti-multinational Leftists on the other. Plus "false equivalence", in Wikipedia terms, would be more about making unequal positions sound equal. The existence of an article doesn't have to do that. We have LGBT conservatism in the United States even though most LGBT do not poll as conservative. The existence of articles, I think, is more about whether it can be sourced and is notable enough to justify an article.--T. Anthony (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it does create false equivalence, because there is no movement against Hillary Clinton from the Democratic Party, while indeed there is a huge movement against Donald Trump from the Republican Party. LGBT conservatism is an actual thing, because there are millions of LGBT conservatives, and a handful have been elected, and conservatism among LGBT people has been covered as a notable movement of people. Democratic opposition to Hillary Clinton has not been covered as a movement apart from individual defectors, of which there is a small number. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • In parts of Appalachia, the one district of Maine, and such it has been noted there seems to be a number of Democrats going for Trump. And whether Stein will draw any disaffected Sanders voters was a topic of discussion. We can have articles on small phenomenon. In fact I think we do it a fair amount. That there is a big movement against Donald Trump, and only a small one against Hillary Clinton that's in a scattering of areas, doesn't mean we must ignore the one for fear of making it sound too big. (Although if you prefer it not being a list I'm open to renaming it Democratic opposition to Hillary Clinton in 2016 to avoid some of the listing issues and make it a different form of article.)--T. Anthony (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's such a comparatively small occurrence that psephologists could write an article about and will surely be discussed by campaign strategists in the event of a Clinton 2020 presidential campaign. But in terms of notability, it simply has none. The notable party figures are few, and the news isn't talking about it. This is creating a story where there isn't one, riding close to WP:OR, in the name of impartiality. Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Possibly 12% of Democrats isn't that small. And as it's mostly among whites without college education it's going to be of less interest to journalists who tend to be educated. I'm not at all arguing the article should be as big as the other or that we should make articles on every small town Democratic mayor for Trump or college professor who switched to the Green Party, but something on it seems like it can be okay.--T. Anthony (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you support deletion or keeping the article? Please use words such as Delete or KeepTheoallen1 (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with the reasons offered by T. Anthony. I would add that as I was reading the Anti-Trump/GOP page, I found myself wondering if there were a comparable page for Clinton. I assumed there was, and also assumed it would be shorter. Both of my assumptions were correct. Had there not been a comparable page, I might have concluded that there were no notable Democrats anywhere who oppose to Clinton, and that would seem unlikely. Fmjohnson (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A handful of party figures will always buck the nominee for one reason or another. Trump's surge of opposition in an unprecedented and notable event. Clinton's is standard. Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a rule there is not to be articles on things unless they are unusual? Has the media written a great deal on this? No. Is it as notable as the Republican issue? No. (Although again the idea we can only have equally notable topics in order to make an article I don't think is any kind of rule. We have an article on USA Next even though AARP is much larger. And as makes sense AARP is the larger article by a good deal.) Have they noted this in regard to some regions anyway? Yes. Are we meaning media not linked to the candidate? Considering some of it is papers and magazines endorsing Hillary Clinton, yes.--T. Anthony (talk) 06:55, 12 October 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 October 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The mayor of a town of 19,000 who doesn't even have his own page. Two C-list celebs. An RFK speechwriter with a stub for a page. And Cornel West (who I'm pretty sure was never a registered member of the Democratic Party). If you removed them, you'd have a list of nine people. There is no anti-Clinton movement within the Democratic Party, despite certain elements wishing there was. Jim Webb and the probably-never-a-Democrat-in-the-first-place West are really the only people even remotely relevant in regards to the 2016 election. This smacks of people trying to create a false equivalence between the candidates. Furthermore, the GOP mutiny against Trump, especially after the convention, remains one of the largest storylines in this election. The reason we made a list article for Republicans opposing Trump as opposed to "Republican and conservative support for Hillary Clinton" a-la Republican and conservative support for Barack Obama in 2008 is because the sheer number of Republicans - and prominent Republicans, not just the mayors of towns with 19,000 people - who oppose his candidacy. Hillary Clinton is not facing any-mutiny from the Democratic Party, let alone one even remotely close to the size of Trump's. At most the people (with articles) should be listed on each candidate's endorsements page for their preferred presidential candidate. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per MAINEiac4434. Trump opposition is rampant and reaches to the highest level of government and intelligentsia. Clinton party opposition is sparse and mostly isolated to celebrities. It's an attempt to be unbiased but in reality is unbalanced. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Polls may not really show that, though you think they would. They show Trump opposition is higher, but Democrats not voting for Clinton looked about average in the most recent one I saw. (Also only one celebrity still looks to be on it.) It might be higher in parts of Appalachia, Iowa, or parts of Wisconsin. There are journalists doing a few stories about it[2][3][4][5][6][7]. I'm not claiming it's a huge phenomenon, but that it meets a standard of being verifiable and noted. (and for the record I ended my period as a registered Republican due in part to Trump.)--T. Anthony (talk) 06:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Without any sitting federal- and state-level officials, the credibility of this article is weak. Jusfiq (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - too short a list to matter. In every election a few partisans don't support their nominee, and I don't see how this list is notable. Nothing more than a pile of soapboxen. FWIW, #ImwithHer. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per MAINEiac4434. This article was obviously created in response to the well-established List of Republicans opposing Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 (a no-brainer, considering hundreds have opposed Trump's candidacy from his own party and continue to do so). Indeed, this list of 15 people is simply too short, and I fail to see any political relevance or notability to the impending general election. Disclosure: I just don't like silly articles on Wikipedia seeking to create a false equivalence; Trump has many people leaving his party, Clinton does not -- get over it. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think this gives a perspective that there is an equivalent to the Trump-opposition whether it is small or not. It gives you perspective and that I think is indeed relevant – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 08:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jump Guru: "gives a perspective that there is an equivalent to the Trump-opposition" -- the word equivelant means: equal of value. Hundreds of Trump opposers versus fifteen Clinton opposers is clearly not equal of value. Hence my comment (and the comments of others) above, that this list only serves as a 'false-equivalance'. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Equivalent is a word, I agree, "keep" voters should stay away from. However there is evidence of pretty strong levels of defection in Ohio, Western Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. But "equivalence" is not why I favor keep. I favor keep because it can be valid sourced and is notable. Even if it were only of interest to Appalachia we do have articles like Mount Airy Fiddlers Convention, Vandalia Gathering, Urban Appalachian Council, and the entire Category:Affrilachian Poets as well as much of Category:Coal Wars. Articles can exist on topics not equally important to another article. As mentioned we have articles on USA Next and I could maybe add Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Yeah I think that's an explicitly political standard. There is something on Wikipedia about "undue weight" but I think that's more about an article making one side look bigger than it is. It's not "undue weight" to have an article on a topic of less media interest or significance than another similar article. There are articles on Black supremacy, Nicaraguan exceptionalism, Category:Front organizations, and maybe others could fit. It existing isn't giving "false equivalency."--T. Anthony (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. manufactured topic. Not actually discussed as such in the Rw; the arguments here are a ,osture of OR and political propaganda. DGG ( talk ) 07:49, 19 October 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. No evidence that sufficient coverage exists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HostWithLove[edit]

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

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

Delete per WP:NCORP and WP:PROMO. Secondary sources do not support the notability of the subject - article is written with a promotional tone. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject lacks notability and any kind of coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly not notable as sources such as whois and business databases don't support the notability of the subject. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable per coverage. --JessikaRita (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide sources to confirm your claims that it is notable. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 02:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, non-notable subject. Article creator is single-purpose account with probable undeclared conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. Citobun (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Hardly any coverage in reliable independent sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as essentially clear advertising, from the listed company information, to services and then where to find and contact them, that's nothing but advertising and is not something we should ever think otherwise about; expected, only one focused account has started and contributed to this so that speaks for itself. SwisterTwister talk 23:22, 18 October 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. High Alexa ranks and Facebook likes are not evidence of notability. Insufficient coverage by reliable source on the contrary is strong evidence of not being notable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MakeUseOf[edit]

MakeUseOf (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 entity. Nothing significant about this. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become blog directory. 1000s of blogs website happens every day. Just another one. Similar to The Next Web and Yourstory. Written to promote company or product nothing else. Light2021 (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I disagree that this article covers a non-notable subject. The website is listed at 814 Alexa Global Ranking and has a variety of sources listed on the article. Other similar properties like Engadget have thier own Wikipedia articles because of high traffic and notability and the one for Make Use Of is no different. The page should be updated and additional sources added as per the cleanup tags added last month but the article should not be deleted. --Drmotley (talk) 09:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa Rank is not a criteria for Notability. this website is used to create WikiSpan in massive amount as misleading source of Media coverage. where it is just the form of Churnalism. Articles written here are highly questionable in nature. Written by either affiliate writer or company person. References of such website or even having a article for such website make a wikipedia place for high spam problems. Light2021 (talk) 13:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are trying to be argumentative. I am clearly not suggesting that every website should have a Wikipedia article, but a high ranking, along with high readership, high Facebook likes (which is actually a measure of success), suggests notability and makes the page not worth deletion. As I stated before, cleanup needs to be undertaken to improve the quality of the page - which should be relatively easy, but a long standing technology website with high traffic is notable. Could you clarify the term "Wikispan". With regards to Churnalism - I think its doubtful you have even visited the website as they don't even have news coverage. Having viewed your user contributions you seem to have a desire to remove all technology journalism sites from Wikipedia. --Drmotley (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence for notability--minor notices such as every technology firm gets as a matter of course. DGG ( talk ) 19:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - certainly notable enough. There's much coverage on it, it has over 400.000 likes on facebook and the site is very popular. --Fixuture (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Facebook Likes? Seriously? Entity with no existence can have as many as 10,000,0000,000 likes. That is not even a creteria for any kind of notability. Light2021 (talk) 05:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Light2021: Yes, seriously - I think such a high number of likes is a very clear indication of notability. It's not the only thing that I named here though. Not sure what you mean by "Entity with no existence can have as many as 10,000,0000,000 likes". --Fixuture (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simply mean any random object or thing or people or company can make facebook page. You can generate as much as like you want, organic, paid or simply a likes trick. or as per real Logic can you cite any Wikipedia policy that says Facebook like even a considering point of notability. I will Believe! Links or Website such as these are source of Abundance of Spam or junk in Wikipedia these days. Any company or people are using them as source of Media coverage or notability, wherein such source itself are made to promote things and nothing else. Where there are no proof of credible journalism for such website. Merely popular or being visited by thousands of visitors, Alexa rank, Twitter Followers, or high degree of article creation in a website does not make anything notable. As per guidelines. Light2021 (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- an unremarkable blog lacking significant RS coverage. Being named "one of the 'Top 100 Undiscovered Websites' in 2007" is a dubious honour. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Created by WP:SPA with probable WP:COI. Facebook likes is not a measure of notability. Citobun (talk) 14:30, 17 October 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. sufficient consensus, in line with similar articles DGG ( talk ) 07:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriele Fumai[edit]

Gabriele Fumai (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:NPOL. ubiquity (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Municipal councillors do not get a free pass over WP:NPOL just because they exist — and that goes double for someone who isn't even on the city council, but merely on a borough council. And the sourcing here doesn't assist him in claiming a WP:GNG pass, either — of the four references, two are primary sources and the other two just namecheck his existence in the process of failing to be about him. This is not what it takes to get a municipal councillor in the wikidoor. Bearcat (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NN municipal politician. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete this article because it is a public and political figure in the area in the Metropolitan City of Venice. — 79.16.27.16 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • That's not enough. Not every local politician is notable. According to WP:NPOL, local politicians require "significant press coverage" to be notable. There are two press sources provided in the article: the first quotes from Fumai's twitter feed without providing information about him, and the second merely mentions him in a list of other councillors. This is not enough to demonstrate the kind of notability he needs for an article. ubiquity (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Has many sources outside WP. Notable. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 03:33, 18 October 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 United States presidential election debates, 2016#Second presidential debate (Washington University in St. Louis). The headcount is: keep 23, delete 15, merge 23, redirect 2. As a first approximation, therefore, we do not have consensus for any one option, but a clear majority against keeping this as a separate article.

Looking at the arguments advanced, the principal argument for deletion is that this is a WP:BLP1E case, and the principal argument for keeping is the amount of continuing post-debate media coverage he receives. These are all by and large valid arguments, but I note that many "keep" opinions are weakly argued: they are either pure votes (106.129.92.180, Dr who1975, Kabahaly, KGirlTrucker81, Vulpicula) or do not make arguments that address the BLP1E issue (216.100.95.193, Jump Guru, Zanski, 72.230.184.142, OlEnglish, 2601:8C:4001:DCF4:5C88:9ECA:C014:215D). I must therefore conclude that, after weighing the arguments made in the light of our policies and practices, we have a consensus to not keep this as an article, but no consensus for any specific implementation (delete, merge, redirect).

But considering that merge has the most support, followed by delete, I think that it is proper to close this, for now, as a "selective merge", i.e., merging a condensed version appropriate to the scope and size of the target article. Later discussion and consensus may have to determine whether mention of the topic there is to be reduced even more (if it turns out that coverage does not continue) or whether this article can be recreated as a spinoff article if substantial media coverage continues even after the election.  Sandstein  09:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Bone[edit]

Kenneth Bone (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 an IP, concern was: Fails WP:BLP1E (event: United States presidential election debates, 2016). Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Merge to United States presidential election debates, 2016#Second presidential debate (Washington University in St. Louis) pbp 20:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only notable for his question at the debate, and unlikely to have sustained notability. Natg 19 (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral After a careful reading of the essay on WP:LOWPROFILE, it seems that Ken Bone is not a "low-profile individual", or at least is not trying to stay a low profile individual. He has made numerous media appearances, and had an AMA on Reddit last week. It appears that he is trying to promote himself with the publicity that he got from the debate, and is not shying from the attention that he received. I'm not sure if that means that he deserves his own article, but I am less convinced that his article should be deleted. Natg 19 (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep many notable news sources and sustained notability depends on many things - he is certainly getting the invitations to become even more notable (e.g. Jimmy Kimmel) and he does not seem to be shying away from the attention, so may well be sustained. Scarykitty (talk) 00:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge — He's a meme. Just merge it since he's getting news recognition regardless. He doesn't really deserve a standalone article. Aria1561 (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. He received a large amount of attention after the debate, but for now it seems best to merge (not outright delete, though) into United States presidential election debates, 2016#Second presidential debate (Washington University in St. Louis), at least for now. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the debate article. There has been coverage of him in RS. Whether it should stay there can be determined afterwards. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Widespread media coverage, even on Canadian news. He is considered a notable part of the debate, but not anywhere alse. Meiloorun (talk) 🍁 02:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, for now as that seems to be the consensus due to lots of news sources (even though WP:NOTNEWS and he's known for only WP:ONEEVENT. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, good coverage, but one event. Coderzombie (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, agreed, a footnote in a small part of history, better footnoted in wiki Mindme (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: If he continues to have a good public career, we could look at having a page for him. However, at this time, we're only going off of some attention for one debate. It's the same reason "Tea Lizard" was redirected. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 03:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep at least until after the election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.129.92.180 (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC) — 106.129.92.180 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Merge: I agree with DarthBotto. --Thnidu (talk) 05:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Delete Agree that it's one event, which should be the debate. Absolutely no reason to make a separate page for this. None. This goes against a lot of wikipedia policies such as only being notable for one very specific thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenSHK (talk • contribs) 06:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E, seems undue to merge into a short summary of the debate. He's not yet a Joe the Plumber. --McGeddon (talk) 09:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or merge if any of it is worth including in the article about the debates. Textbook WP:BLP1E. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and re-evaluate notability at a later date.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge at best, even though by election day, his presence at the debate article will probably seem inappropriate. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 18:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge A pretty textbook case of WP:BLP1E, but Bone is relevant to the second debate. A sentence or two describing Bone's role in the debate should be sufficient. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't Crispus Attucks also be an example of WP:BLP1E? We don't merge him into the Boston Massacre. Just sayin.--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr who1975: You seem to believe that BLP1E can never apply anywhere. And in order to prove it, you inadvertently compared a debate to the Boston effing Massacre. I foresee your approach not convincing very many people. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 04:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can always re-create an article if the situation dictates. So if Wikipedia existed back then, Attucks would've started off as a redirect, but then eventually become a full fledged article as his historical/commemorative significance increased. -LtNOWIS (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crispus Attucks does not fall under BLP1E as he is, funnily enough, not a living person. (And independently notable in his own right.) Robofish (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's true that significant coverage is significant coverage, but for now, I think we'll need some time before this subject can have an article long enough to reach more than just ONEEVENT status editorEهեইдအ😎 22:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have added a single sentence about Bone to the presidential debate article. I reckon one sentence may be enough. pbp 00:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to article on the St. Louis debate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Might be WP:TOOSOON but look at what happened to Joe The Plumber. I think the guy is article-worthy, there are WP:RS coming out on him with every passing day. Buffaboy ^talk 03:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Merge/delete Absurd that an article was even created in the first place, negligible notability, purely news. Reywas92^Talk 04:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with no mention or redirect anywhere else. This is a distraction. He's just known as a guy who asked a question on TV, currently not suitable as a biography, it's more like "Red sweater guy's question during the debate". WP:ILIKEIT but there were other "events" that happened during the debate like Trump's "Because you'd be in jail" comment [8], Bill Clinton's face at one point [9], a fly landing on Hillary Clinton's face [10] and a fat guy being there [11] that aren't mentioned on Wikipedia.

This one may have been pushed in the media more but it doesn't genuinely look that much more popular than the others. Emily Goldstein (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC) — Emily Goldstein (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• I think Ken should get a page. His twitter account now has 250,000 followers. https://twitter.com/kenbone18?lang=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.160.157.129 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC) — 69.160.157.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete - I thought I did not see correct. Much less important than the most unimportant Pokemon. Did some people here still realize, what Wikipedia is and what an absolutely short Internet hype Bone is? An Encyclopedia collects the natable KNOWLEGDE of the word and sorted ist, weighted it. To know about a fact is not knowledge. A ridicoulus "article". Shamefull for the whole worldwide Wikimedia movement. Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Shamefull - It's also shameful that a senior editor can't spell correctly. --85.197.18.49 (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. This is, why I don't write articles here. 2. Always funny to see, how people like you talk to legasthenics as me. 3. I never said, my english is good. But it's good enough to understand, who depends to encyclopedias. 4. Did you speak german as good as I do it with english - or maybe an other language? Marcus Cyron (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with debate article. Jajasoon (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with debate article and *SMH* that this was created in the first place. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: this man is an important part of the debate and he needs to have his own page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.100.95.193 (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC) — 216.100.95.193 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Merge with debate article since has has gotten some media attention but seriosly, all he did was ask a question. Who is notable for just that? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to second debate article. However, if kept, please include the results of my investigative reporting which revealed that the red sweater is washed nightly. [12].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to United States presidential election debates, 2016#Second presidential debate (Washington University in St. Louis) per nom. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to United States presidential election debates, 2016. Way, way too premature. This guy's alleged 'fame' hasn't lasted a week yet. Nothing here so far justifies an independent article. Robofish (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: A tsunami of articles about Ken Bone from many highly reliable sources have appeared over the past few days. A selection of which includes the following:

CBS News

The internet's calling out Ken Bone over his Reddit history

by Jennifer Earl

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ken-bones-reddit-history/

CNN

Ken Bone leaves seedy comment trail on Reddit

by Sara Ashley O'Brien

http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/14/technology/ken-bone-reddit/index.html?sr=twCNN101416ken-bone-reddit0435PMStoryLink&linkId=29943238

CNN

Ken Bone sells out for Uber

by Seth Fiegerman

http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/13/technology/ken-bone-uber/index.html?iid=EL

New York Times

We May Be Leaving the Ken Bone Zone

By Katie Rogers

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/15/us/politics/we-may-be-leaving-the-ken-bone-zone.html

New York Times

Ken Bone Is Closer to Deciding, After Debate

By Jonah Engel Bromwich

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/us/politics/ken-bone-is-closer-to-deciding-after-debate.html

Washington Post

Ken Bone was a ‘hero.’ Now Ken Bone is ‘bad.’ It was his destiny as a human meme.

By Abby Ohlheiser

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/10/14/ken-bone-was-a-hero-now-ken-bone-is-bad-it-was-his-destiny-as-a-human-meme/

Fox News

Ken Bone linked to questionable past comments on Reddit

(no byline)

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2016/10/14/ken-bone-linked-to-questionable-past-comments-on-reddit.html

Time

10 of the Best Ken Bone Memes on the Internet

by Melissa Chan

http://time.com/4526816/ken-bone-presidential-debate-memes/

Time

Ken Bone Talks About His Conversation with Bill Clinton and Memes in Peak Internet Mode

by Cady Lang

http://time.com/4531194/ken-bone-reddit-ama/

Slate

What Ken Bone’s Porn Preferences Tell Us About Internet Privacy Today

By Mark Joseph Stern

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/10/14/ken_bone_reddit_porn_and_internet_privacy_today.html

While the article needs a lot of work (like many on Wikipedia), I believe there is now little justification for passing this AFD. I urge people who have voted "Delete" or "Merge" to reconsider. Carl Henderson (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• But will he meet the threshold for WP:SUSTAINED? He seems like just a Reddit meme that went public to me. Furthermore, see WP:BLP1E; he is notable for one event and is likely to stay that way. Also read WP:NOTNEWS. --Therealelizacat (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes GNG per Carl Henderson. Carrite (talk) 03:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge depth of coverage and length of article not sufficient to support a stand-alone article. Information about Kenneth Bone is fine, and can be incorporated well into the article about the specific debate he appeared in. Otherwise, there's not enough here to support enough text to fill a stand-alone article. Regarding comparisons to Joe the Plumber, if the situation changes in the future, we could revisit this in the future. As it stands today, there simply isn't enough to support a stand-alone article about this subject. The text written in the article is fine, and can be easily moved to the article about the debate with no loss of information for Wikipedia. --Jayron32 04:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Vermin Supreme is not just notable for one event. --Therealelizacat (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think he's notable enough to warrant his own article. Kabahaly (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 13:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - it seems unlikely he will meet guidelines for WP:SUSTAINED and WP:BLP1E despite Reddit's aggrandizing and apparent invasion. Wikipedia is not a place for memes. --Therealelizacat (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to comment here, @Therealelizacat this is just simply not true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_phenomena KingAntenor (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously notable enough for a standalone article, even if he shouldn't be. See, for instance, [13] [14] [15] [16]. That's a lot of real news organizations reporting on this guy as if he's a part of a major political scandal. This coverage has been sustained for a week and shows no signs of slowing down; it's been increasing, if anything. The coverage has moved beyond the debate entirely, so BLP1E isn't applicable. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Read WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT more closely. Just because he's getting a flurry of attention does not mean it will be WP:SUSTAINED. --Therealelizacat (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - people should please review WP:ILIKEIT and consider other comments before voting. --Therealelizacat (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge No lasting significance beyond a mention in the debate article. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He's become far more than internet famous. He's become mainstream media famous and there's still no signs of media coverage slowing down. BlueGold73 (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, protect the redirect, and speedy close. Textbook BLP1E case, and there's now a developing cottage industry devoted to doxing the guy and publicizing his thoroughly unnoteworthy, undeniably unencyclopedic, often embarrassing, internet posting history. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a two minute appearance on TV is not notability . Wikipedia notability is not driven by meme popularity. This is what Wikipedia is not.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Ken Bone has appeared on national TV for much longer than two minutes, and has been trending on social media sites for significantly longer. He will remain a permanent political meme for American politics. Therefore Bone meets WP:NOTABILITY. A merge with the debates page would just look like undue weight, this page is far more appropriate for any information about him. KingAntenor (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - I agree, he will probably remain an icon – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 03:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Uncertain - Either Merge or Keep, not sure because the man has multiple New York Times articles about himself, which is itself notable, although I am not certain how that fits in with applicable policies. Skywalker Kush (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While the idealist in me would like to merge the article, I really can't find much notability on Mr. Bone nor do I think that it fits well within the debate article. — Chevvin 00:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Uncertain - Either Merge or Keep If we have pages for people that most people haven't heard of, for example Aaron Sherinian why aren't we considering his article for deletion instead of this one but merging it would be a good comprimise — Preceding unsigned comment added by NHL36 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC) — NHL36 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep - Per precedence set by the article Joe the Plumber. "Ken Bone" has about 1,050,000 results on Google News ([17]). "Kenneth Bone" has 138,000 results on Google News ([18]). The NYT even has an article on "The Kenneth Bone Effect" ([19]). An analysis of the news links indicates that Ken Bone is not just discussed for who he is as a person, but also for what he represents (or at least seems to represent) as an "undecided voter". Of course, the media is now also tearing into some of his more negative online history, but that does not do away with the fact that this individual meets all of the standards of notability required by Wikipedia. Best.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 02:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The amount of press this guy is getting is immense, and has only been growing over the past week. He's more than just a blip on the radar at this point. Also easily passes GNG. Lizard (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge at best; delete if we're really unforgiving. I cannot at this point see how any keep !votes are justified. "He's getting a ton of coverage". So what? WP:BIO1E exists for a reason; so does WP:RECENT. But for the debate, he'd be just another anonymous Redditor.

  And that brings up another reason we should delete this: if we don't, we will have to keep debating whether to include that or not. As I type, Vanessa Bayer is on Saturday Night Live cracking jokes about exactly that disclosure. And I do not see any reason this should be allowed to follow this guy around for the rest of his life at this point. Or, more to the point, I do not want a project I very much enjoy being part of to be part of the reason he shoots himself two years from now. Not at this point in time, anyway.

  Put it this way: we have allowed Brian Chase to get on with his life; Mr. Bone deserves no less if he wishes to retreat from the limelight. Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's like this: when I wanted to know more about Ken Bone, the first place I went was Wikipedia. While it's not perfect, I knew that Wikipedia was the best alternative for general, unbiased information. Perhaps we need an all-purpose "topical" category. Zanski (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. The only reason he is known is the single question he asked during the presidential debate; everything else he has done is non-notable and would not have been covered if it weren't for the debate question. BLP1E exists for this exact purpose. Bjelleklang - talk 11:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect  This is not a clear decision.  On the one hand we have a timely reasonable article with encyclopedic viewpoint that presents the facts that people want to know who have come to Wikipedia for this information.  The fact that the article is filled with trivia-oids (factoids of trivia) in no way changes that this is what readers want.  This satisfies WP:IAR for a keep result.  We have a huge news spike that hasn't abated, as this morning on NBC's Meet the Press, Bone's Twitter "Likes" before and after the debate were reported.  We also have the second presidential debate coverage "Reception" which will absolutely need to cover this topic as an event, and there might be reason to merge the bio.  We also have WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, which says this article under discussion is what Wikipedia is not.  Since I'm from the view that WP:ITN should be closed as a distraction from our core purpose, and that there is no deadline, I take the view that we can wait a couple of months before deciding if this low-profile individual should have a standalone article.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Ken Bone had appeared on media not just on his appearance on the 2016 Debate, but also for his personal life. Per Carl Henderson. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The article seems to be fairly accurate, though brief. While the significance of Ken Bone is debatable, it is evident that there is a significant public interest in him. While the article may need to be edited, it is probably best that it be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yr1monroe (talk • contribs) 02:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC) — Yr1monroe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep This man has been referenced in national newsmagazines and newspapers, on websites, on Saturday Night Live. Some people seem to make a fetish of nominating articles for deletion. There's no downside in keeping it. Deleting it helps to slowly obliterate the enviable position Wikipedia currently has as the go-to site for all information. Moncrief (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your hyperbole, some other people seem to have a fetish of creating articles of short-lived news-related jokes without lasting notability. I think SNL has sketched a lot of people in 40 years, that doesn't mean there should be an article on all of them. We do not need to emulate knowyourmeme.com. Reywas92^Talk 20:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Tons of media coverage for the internet sensation, especially after the SNL cold open on October 15. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Much like Harambe, Ken Bone is an American hero. 72.230.184.142 (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC) — 72.230.184.142 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep. Pretty well established now as a political internet meme. -- œ^™ 07:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, probably should be rewritten as such, instead of a regular biography of the man. -- œ^™ 08:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While I don't think Ken Bone is deserving of his own page, I believe that he made a big enough impact on internet culture that he should not be completely glossed over. That being said, I don't think it is appropriate to merge this with the page on the debate, because, as fun as it was to have him there, he was not an important aspect as to the outcome of the debate. So, the best option is to keep this page. Zjschulman (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC) — Zjschulman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • We can conclude he's made a massive impact on internet culture? You mean one week of jokes and memes? HAHAHAHA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one week is enough to make Ken Bone an Internet sensation. Although we can't truly see if the meme will last in notability, know that almost all memes start to lose popularity over time. We still have articles on those memes as they impacted Internet culture and society at their inception and created a short-term impact. Many news stories seem to be forgotten over time (for instance, Sagamihara stabbings), but we still have articles on them as the event(s) received plenty of news coverage. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need to know any more than "we can't truly see" yet?  Is there a problem with waiting?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many people want to know information about Ken Bone when he was at his "meme peak" (this past week). Stats on the page's views confirms this. It doesn't make sense to allow an article to be created on him at a later time - Ken Bone is already receiving a lot of news coverage right now. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 03:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I see !votes from accounts with fewer than 20 lifetime edits. I'm worried given the media coverage canvassing might be an issue. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I've heard people mention his name for the last week. He belongs on an article here. 2601:8C:4001:DCF4:5C88:9ECA:C014:215D (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC) — 2601:8C:4001:DCF4:5C88:9ECA:C014:215D (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep - This man is enjoying sustained media coverage and considerable prominence in one of the most important events of the 21st century. If Joe the Plumber has a page, so must Ken Bone. MTG1989 ^talk 02:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. Ken Bone is a low-profile individual and reliable sources only cover him in relation to his debate question. gobonobo ^{+ c} 12:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. The only reason he is known is the single question he asked during the presidential debate; everything else he has done is non-notable and would not have been covered if it weren't for the debate question. BLP1E exists for this exact purpose. Rcsprinter¹²³ (notify) 17:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not even debatable. This is pure WP:BLP1E. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's very debatable, that's why we are having a debate. Here is a new piece in FORBES which posits the Bone case as a watershed moment in the nature of 21st Century fame. Will this Warholian "15 minutes of fame" prove to be unsustained in popular culture? Perhaps. But it is far too early to judge that. Based upon the plethora of really big time media coverage, we should err on the side of inclusionism now, perhaps to revisit this a year or two hence. Carrite (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the funniest shit I've seen in ages, thanks for the laugh. It's still BLP1E. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:BLP1E; meme that's already suffered its death. (Do any of you remember Occupy Boston? Occupy San José? I don't, either.) Cloudchased (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Possibly delete or merge later, if he fades back into obscurity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vulpicula (talk • contribs) 22:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolutely Delete. In fact I went looking to see if someone had made an article about him, just so I could nominate it for deletion. This is an absolutely classic case of WP:BLP1E. Until last week this person was a totally unknown private citizen. Because he asked a question at a presidential debate, he rocketed from obscurity to internet darling to internet pariah in the space of about 48 hours. Give him back his obscurity and his privacy. The media will move on to something else soon enough. If people are still talking about him six months from now, for reasons other than the debate and his history at reddit, then we could consider restoring the article. Joe the Plumber went on to lasting fame, but most 15-minute-wonders don't. --MelanieN (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I mean, I think he's entertaining, but it's obviously a clear WP:BLP1E. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Garg[edit]

He is the author of many books like introductory micro and macro economics class 12th . He has done b.com(hon.) And ca.

Sandeep Garg (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)

Promotional article that is severely undersourced and lacking in WP:RS. Also individual is not notable. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I'm unsure if there are more coverage of subject like this one. As it stands now, it fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The article also reads WP:PROMOTIONAL; such that even if more sources are presented here without any effort to fix the article, it should still be deleted per WP:TNT. Anup [Talk] 16:34, 12 October 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 (Procedural Close). per A7 by TomStar81 -- (non-admin closure) Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary "Zach" Rance[edit]

Zachary "Zach" Rance (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)

Individual lacks notability and has not achieved anything notable career-wise to merit a Wikipedia article. Having an amount of followers on social media does not constitute reasons for a Wikipedia page. The individual only notable achievement was competing in Big Brother in 2014 and that's not enough to merit a Wikipedia article.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. Rance is know by many fans around the world, his merits are valid however, the article needs more work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimsae04 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Having fans is no reason to have a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a fan page and his merits lack notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamswiki5 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would have speedied this, article mainly a collection of quotes and trivia Jimfbleak (talk) 06:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• keep rance have notability, I don't see why he does not have a Wikipedia. plus there is no violation of Wikipedia's rules — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasin121 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I would also suggest redirect to List of Big Brother 16 houseguests (U.S.)#Zach. Also check for sockpuppets since two of the keep comments sounds very similar and have the same writing style. The individual lacks notability besides competing in Big Brother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamswiki5 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 12 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Fitts[edit]

Michael Fitts (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)

Reason TulaneU (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Was this meant to be requested for deletion, as there needs to be a viable reason for deletion? Otherwise this will be procedurally closed. However, I have tagged the page for a copyvio, as it is almost a carbon copy of [20]. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:16, 11 October 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 October 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have removed the copyvio, stubbed down the article using the previously-copied web page as a source, and revdelled the offending versions. As president of a major university he passes WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep the president of a major university will inevitably be notable. Nominator is also the article creator, so unsure what their motivation is here. Now that the copyvio is removed I don't see any reason to delete it. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep With the copyvio removed the subject clearly meets WP:GNG. The comment above was to question the reasoning for the nomination. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep but watch the page, as someone (I assume University staff) attempted to add another copyvio today: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Koch (footballer, born 1984)[edit]

Jan Koch (footballer, born 1984) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD (concern was he made a 2. Bundesliga appearance, which is false, link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4). Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, as Koch has never made an appearance in a fully professional league, has never made a senior international appearance, and has no solid independent notability. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Apologies, lack of fact checking on my part, I knew Dresden were a big club and must be in a pro league, but I was obviously wrong. fails WP:NFOOTBALL — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leonie Wood[edit]

Leonie Wood (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:CREATIVE based on the information here. Online search is not coming up with any independent coverage. January (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The source used on the page is to a writing profile and is WP:SPS so it cannot be used. I can find coverage that shows she exists, but nothing that talks in-depth about her. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 14 October 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 Clyde-Green Springs Schools. consensus to follow our usual rule here. If this was a test case, it was not well chosen. Some few elementary schools can be notable, but there needs to be some special reason. DGG ( talk ) 07:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 07:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Green Springs Elementary School (Ohio)[edit]

Green Springs Elementary School (Ohio) (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 elementary school should be redirected to school district (Clyde-Green Springs Schools) per norm. An earlier school burned in the late 1800s but this school cannot claim to be historically significant since the site was not used for another school for at least 40 years. The school was built, it's funded, it has a playground, and it has had principals. Nothing showing notability there. The only item of interest is the provision of Chromebooks to the students, and I don't see that as being sufficient for notability. Meters (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article creator made this comment when creating the article "Do NOT redirect or delete without discussion!!! I made this page as a test to see if people can accept the actual notability of a standalone elementary school article. The 'inherent unnotability' guideline is just a GUIDELINE, not POLICY! Let's see if we can accept articles such as these while still ignoring the guideline and focusing more on the facts." Well, here's your discussion. Meters (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Nowhere near enough to sustain an article. All the sources are local, all the referenced facts are mundane. Fails WP:ORG, and obviously fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and WP:WPSCH/AG#N. To top it off, altho not really on point here, it just isn't written very well either. John from Idegon (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:John from Idegon "<mocking tone of voice>It just isn't very well written either.</mocking tone of voice>" Are you serious? See WP:NPA. I actually spent a lot of time on this article so that is insulting. I'll have you know that I spent a great deal of time writing my articles on WP when I was into it. I see nothing wrong with the quality of this article aside from its questionable notability. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You wrote an article about an apparently non-notable elementary school as a test. It's irrelevant whether it is well written. It is up for deletion as a non-notable subject. If you think it should be kept then add your Keep and make your case. Meters (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the school district article, merging some of the information about the Chromebook program if desired (if article length is a problem, there's some content in the district article that probably needs to be trimmed down to satisfy WP:BLP). Entertaining the article creator's request, I looked for sources for this as if WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES didn't exist at all. I found some (probably trivial, but still...) history about the school during desegregation... no, wait, that's a different Green Springs Elementary School (in Louisa County, Virgnia, and no longer in service). Aaaand then we're pretty much done, except for the requisite routine coverage that doesn't contribute to notability on any local topic, elementary school or otherwise. The local newspaper's Halloween-season light news story suggesting that the school building is haunted by the ghosts of students from the original 19th century school is about the most interesting, but doesn't get within sight of being appropriate for an encyclopedia article. As an aside, the information in the article as it stands is problematic. The 2010 date in the infobox is apparently solely for the most recent building; the school operated under this name at least as far back as the early 1960s (based on this mention of its former principal in the Congressional Record, and, no, that contributes to the notability of neither the school nor the principal). There's almost certainly some elementary school, somewhere, that can sustain an article on its own merits; this is not that case. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect of course, to the school district article. Other contributors here have explained perfectly what our usual process is for such school articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Marie Davies[edit]

Kate Marie Davies (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)

Actress in independent films and web series. There is not the depth of coverage to make her notable per WP:GNG, nor do I see any awards or the like that meet the specific criteria for actors. —C.Fred (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only significant coverage I could find from web searches was an interview in UK Horror Scene, but I could spot no indication that this is a reliable source, so the subject doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Qwfp (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacks coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Scholars of Muslim World[edit]

The Scholars of Muslim World (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)

Possible merge into List of contemporary Muslim scholars of Islam? Otherwise an unreferenced page lacking sufficient content to stand on its own. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is, frankly, a mess. It's titled like an essay and the contents demonstrate a lack of familiarity with Wikipedia practices and markup. It definitely doesn't warrant a merge to a list about contemporary scholars of Islam, because all three (mostly misspelled) entries in the fragmentary list are scholars of the Islamic Golden Age: Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi, Jabir ibn Hayyan, and Avicenna. There's no article that would benefit from what content is here (which is honestly just that list of three people), and the title is idiosyncratic enough to be an unlikely search term warranting no redirect. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. very poor for a wikipedia article and serves no purpose to readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimsae04 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Squeamish. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No good purpose will come of it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article really doesn't seem to have a point. We have a list and several categories that cover the same information, rendering this non-article too redundant even for a merge. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:34, 13 October 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 Judge Rummy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Joy Ride[edit]

A Joy Ride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability. Contested PROD. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Judge Rummy. Bray was an extremely important and influential early animation studio. The Judge Rummy series of silent cartoon, beginning ~1919, were by all accounts extremely popular. Unfortunately, the Bray cartoons were underappreciated at the time (especially the later ones distributed by Goldwyn, like this one, as opposed to the early ones distributed by Hearst), and there has been no modern monograph on the studio's work. It might be possible to source an article about the 1919-1920 cartoons in the series, but here, we're really hamstrung by the available sources. The target article doesn't have a filmography listing the titles of the Judge Rummy cartoons, but it hopefully will someday. In any case, the series in general is notable (and easily sourced in that sense), so outright deletion is inappropriate here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Judge Rummy. Take out the unsourced plot section and there isn't much left, but I see no reason not redirect, and expand within the Judge Rummy article if sources are found. --Michig (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

@Coolabahapple: Why? Qwfp (talk) 08:13, 12 October 2016

Qwfp, because i am an idiot ps. have take it from the list, pps. i am open to trouting:)Coolabahapple (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffro Cause[edit]

Geoffro Cause (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)

Unreferenced nonnotable "jack of all trades" musician. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is an unsourced biography of a living person. There is no allegation that, while prolific, this musician is anything more than an ordinary backup musician. Bearian (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: autobiographical article that fails to demonstrate individual notability and WP:MUSICBIO. Richard3120 (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Cornelius Humphrey[edit]

Edward Cornelius Humphrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete. The subject fails WP:MILPEOPLE as well as WP:GNG. The sources listed are either self-published (Gateway Press, for example) or they make no mention of the subject. This is an apparent genealogical project by a distant relative. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. No evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am the author of the article. The article appears to have been nominated for deletion while I was making additions to the WWII military record of Major Edward Cornelius Humphrey. I've already noted the additions and circumstance on my talk page, but I'll find them again and re-post here.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This didn't quite fit Speedy. But unfortunately, none of the proposed additions mentioned there will help. The accumulation of minor events does not make for something substantial. Indeed, if someone does have a substantial and notable career, which is not the case here, the addition of minor detail just obscures the notability . DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG( talk )Did you note the three additional awards I added today along with a mention of the source? They are: "As documented in a photostatic copy of his certificate of service (issued at the Separation Center at Camp Blanding, Florida, on February 1, 1946, and signed by Personnel Officer H. S. Mason, Captain AGD), he also received a European African Middle Eastern Campaign Medal ribbon, an American Theatre ribbon, and a World War II Victory Medal (United States) ribbon." It appears that these campaigns should qualify under #4 of the military guidelines for notability. Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines say "Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign" it's not clear from the article what you consider meets this? Your source is also totally unacceptable. Theroadislong (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Major campaigns are covered: "He was with the US Army Medical Corps for three and one-half years (1942 -1945), one and one-half years of which were in the campaigns of Normandy, Northern France, Ardennes, Rhineland, and Central Europe." Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As for the added campaign medals, they are "being there" awards. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

for example, the US World War II Victory Medal was given to everyone who served in the armed forces during WW2. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not underestimate the importance of "being there," which was a priority objective. Historical fact: WWII Campaign strategies, plans, and personnel locations were secret and were not ordinarily released to the American press. This may be one reason that the American press at the time was only reporting the deaths of American soldiers. Do you not agree? Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This man was a mid-ranking officer. Hundreds of thousands of officers served in the Second World War. Millions of privates and NCOs served. What is special about him? @Mitzi.humphrey: Do you think we should have an article on every single one of them? Just the Americans? Who? What is your justification for having an article on this particular individual? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable in the end for stand alone article and WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies. Kierzek (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:35, 16 October 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.  Sandstein  08:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A K Chenoweth[edit]

A K Chenoweth (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 really don't think the subject of this classic vanity article is notable. TheLongTone (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with your assessment that this is probably an autobiography. She's certainly a lot more accomplished than many people who write their own Wikipedia articles (or pay other people to do so). I'm leaning pretty strongly towards delete, as the sources used are either minor publications or only mention her tangentially. If there's some yet-to-be digitalised paper in Northern Ireland that has written a few indepth articles about her I would reconsider, but it seems unlikely. ¡Bozzio! 15:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, added women project to the article talkpage so participants are notified of this afd.Coolabahapple (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable PR person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:12, 14 October 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 St Brelade's Church. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William George Tabb[edit]

William George Tabb (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)

Speedy removed with the flaky rationale 'rector of notable churche'. Whatever. I see no claim of notability her, just a vicar doing his job. incidentqlly the article gives off a heavy smell of copyvio. TheLongTone (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to St Brelade's Church, which includes a list of the church's rectors. The church is clearly notable, but notability is not inherited, and I can find very little that even hints at nontrivial coverage of Tabb himself. The most promising book, A Peculiar Occupation, is not suitable as a reliable source because it is not independent (it is written by his nephew). Mentions in other books and in the proceedings of the Société Jersiaise are mostly trivial or routine, local coverage. Regarding the potential copyvio issue, the text of the article largely duplicates this blog post. The article was created on the same day that blog post was published, and available information suggests that they were created by the same person. However, it is my understanding of policy that we would require an OTRS ticket to confirm rights ownership, if we were going to retain the content; based on notability and sourcing concerns, I don't think it's worth going to that trouble. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into St Brelade's Church. I see no harm, and plenty of good, to add a list of rectors, e[specially a long-serving incumbent such as this. Bearian (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by nominatorThe proposed merge seems an acceptable solution.TheLongTone (talk) 12:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge a brief summary -- This should not survive as a free-standing article. He may well have been an admirable clergyman, but nevertheless NN in WP terms. I would discourage retaining a redirect, as that is likely to result in someone reinstating the article as a substantive one, which is not deserved. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into St Brelade's Church.– J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 04:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Staunton (band)[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. No sign of notability; the only citation is self-published, and a Google search turned up nothing better. Narky Blert (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Looks like an article for someone's garage band. Not notable... Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The one source (Squarespace) isn't even appropriate. There's nothing of note here, and it definitely fails Notability (music). Kbabej (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sources like this and this seem to cover the band very significantly. What do other editors like Kbabej, Cosmic Sans, Coolabahapple think about these? Lourdes 13:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They've played at some venues but I'm not sure that meets notability guidelines. Which is a shame, because I actually looked up their album on Spotify and I thought it was great. If they aren't notable right now, then they will be someday. Even so I don't think these sources fix the problem... Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cosmic Sans, what do you think is the problem with these sources? In other words, why would you say that these source cannot be used to prove that the band qualifies on NMUSIC? Lourdes 16:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Narky Blert and Kbabej. Lourdes 16:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they don't qualify for numbers 2-12 of notability:music, but it seems you're positing they have substantial coverage, which falls under number 1 anyway. I googled them, and could only come up with some low level local coverage. I just don't think they are there yet. Kbabej (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cumberland Times-News looks an OK source, but it's pretty local. I'm an inclusionist, but for me this band doesn't cut it yet. If they in future get wider notice, I will applaud their sucess, and would argue hard for an article to stay. But as of now, no. (I've refrained from writing an article about Jumpin' Bad, damgud local band round my way with one member who rightly has his own Wiki article (couple of #1 singles) - but that band was in no way notable, it's not mentioned in his article, and I'm not going to add it.) Narky Blert (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for the comments. Understandable. Lourdes 01:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per comments of editors above on the sources I've posted, and based on the subsequent interpretation of notability. Lourdes 01:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Thousand and One Lives[edit]

A Thousand and One Lives (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 and promotional with a clear COI. The COI extends heavily into the article on the artist himself and also another painting article which is also currently in AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manny Pacquiao Hearted Fist) Peter Rehse (talk) 12:21, 11 October 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 October 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC):[reply]

• Delete Non-notable and, incidentally, ghastly painting.TheLongTone (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I appreciate the art of using blood and hair to symbolise the immortality of the teachers' DNA. But significant coverage is missing here, so delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:03, 16 October 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. Closing in favor of a renomination of individual or small groups of articles that are closely related. —SpacemanSpiff 13:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kaura clan[edit]

Kaura clan (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)

All the pages listed below belong to Category:Jat clans, or its subcategories. All these pages lack the very basic notability guidelines. Fail WP:GNG. They must discussed and deleted per WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles:

Attri clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bains clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

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

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

Dahiya (India) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

Gill clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

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

Manda clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Sahu clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

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

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

Dagur clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Daral clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Khatri clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sehrawat (clan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

Dhaka clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

Saharan clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Chandral clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Langrial clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Punyal clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

The above listed articles hardy have any references or citations. Most of them don't have any and the remainder sustain with one or two. There are many other articles in the above mentioned category which need to be AfDed. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please, no. While grouped deletion discussions are sometimes handy, this is over the top. There is no way that I can check for sources for this lot in the usual seven-day period that is allowed at AfD. Bear in mind also that some of these probably can be redirected and some probably can be converted into surname lists, we're looking at an extremely messy discussion. Bin this filing and nominate, say, 3 or 4 per week. That's more than enough to deal with. - Sitush (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: It might be more work in the short term, but please withdraw this and nominate the articles separately, as Sitush suggests, at a slower rate. There is no WP:DEADLINE. A discussion this large is going to go exactly nowhere. Vanamonde (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gurmehar Grewal[edit]

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

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

Delete: Fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The competition win is enough to prevent speedy deletion for lack of indication of significance, but there is nowhere near enough to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete grossly undersourced BLP, no RSes in sight - David Gerard (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and lack of WP:RS. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  08:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Betagarri[edit]

Betagarri (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 claim to notability. Only three albums listed at AllMusic and none have reviews: http://www.allmusic.com/artist/betagarri-mn0001373475/discography Nothing in the first 50 hits on Google supports notability. And only self-published sources on their article on the Spanish project.

Previous AfD was a decade ago when criteria was vastly different than today. One comment then was that they are very famous in Basque Country, yet no sources exist to support that claim. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:GNG. See below for source examples. Sources in addition to those listed below are also available. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  El Correo (in Spanish)

  Diario de Navarra (in Spanish)

  Diario de Navarra (in Spanish)

  Diario de Navarra (in Spanish)

http://www.elcorreo.com/vizcaya/v/20130425/duranguesado/betagarri-lidera-programa-musical-20130425.html simply mentions the band as performing twice, but the article is about the festival.

http://www.diariodenavarra.es/noticias/navarra/zona_norte_oriental/2013/07/20/betagarri_lleva_ska_hasta_sanguesa_124609_1010.html The article is about "music school Juan Francés de Iribarren"

http://www.diariovasco.com/v/20140507/cultura/betagarri-celebra-veinte-anos-20140507.html Good article, but it's under the "more news" section.

http://www.diariovasco.com/v/20130111/alto-deba/betagarri-celebra-aniversario-inundando-20130111.html Another good article.

The real problem I have is that after 20 year, we have two good refs, two questionable sources and a lot of doubt as to the notability of the group. I was coming to see if I should revoke my nomination. I'm not convinced that I should. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:15, 11 October 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: Nomination withdrawn per discussion. (non-admin closure) Otr500 (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Four-Stage Theory of the Republic of China[edit]

Four-Stage Theory of the Republic of China (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 has been tagged a long time (since 2011) as having no source or references. A search brought up only the Wikipedia article. There is no way to check article for WP:OR, copy right issues, or anything. Otr500 (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources mainly in Mandarin, I suggest that you may search in Mandarin "中華民國四階段論" instead of English. [21].- Earth Saver _(talk) at 16:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, [22] is also an example for books in English which introduces this theory. - Earth Saver _(talk) at 16:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Obviously, there are one Chinese version Wikipedia article with multiple citations and a Japanese version of a related article which suggests it's less likely to be an "original research". Anyway, 5 reliable sources, including the one from Earth Saver, has been added to this article while the content has been reviewed and modified as well. -- Wildcursive (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: The first reference used does support, although reworded slightly, the title with "While receiving the delegates of the Formosa Foundation of the United States, President Chen Shui-bian indicates that the four stages of the Republic of China's evolution refer to: the Republic of China as established in China; the Republic of China is transferred from China to Taiwan; the Republic of China on Taiwan during former President Lee Teng-hui's term; and "the Republic of China is Taiwan" after the Democratic Progressive Party became the ruling party in 2000.". The second reference supports the use of the name in the title. The third reference specifically mentions "Chen reiterated his two theories of the ROC's history", specifically the Four States' theory, that is different from the article title but also includes "The nation entered the fourth stage", and also mentions "Chen outlined his second theory, the "Three Stages" theory". The second to last reference #4, is a book, with no page number, and does not support anything in the article. The last reference #5 is a book, Taiwan Country Study Guide: Strategic Information and Developments, with no page number, and does not support anything in the article.

I will concede there is enough to support the title per Wikipedia:Notability, although there is certainly and without a doubt original research, with content not supported by references, some evidently used to give the appearance of having a source, and tags dated from 2009, this does not affect notability.

This article is a glorified stub, prematurely advanced to "start class". I am going to remove the material not supported by references, remove the tags, and reassess the article as "stub class". Please note that reintroduction of the material, by reversion or readdition, without corroborating source, is against policy per WP:BURDEN. I will then withdraw the AFD nomination. Otr500 (talk) 08:39, 16 October 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. adequate consensus that the coverage is not sufficient DGG ( talk ) 22:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitri Vangelis & Wyman[edit]

Dimitri Vangelis & Wyman (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:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this article follows WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC correctly, as it is accompanied by direct and reliable sources, as well as having additional chart information accredited to its name; it charted somewhere. So revoking this nomination of deletion would be appreciated. Thank you.

Infopage100 (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Indeed, follows WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC correctly. plenty of good sources. chart info etc. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the problem is iTunes and Beatport are not recognised charts, and being available on Amazon and YouTube isn't really proof of anything apart from existence. So once you take out all those references and all the blogs, what you're left with is a song that just scraped into a secondary chart in Belgium. Richard3120 (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• leaning keep The article needs serious paring down (really, a lot of those references are rubbish), but that's actually an entry in a Belgian national chart that's good enough for WP:NMUSIC - David Gerard (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article quality and article notability are two different things. Either than that I agree with you Keep !vote.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Ok. There are 109 references. A lot of those references are Youtube links. Yet those YouTube links are only found beside remixes by the duo, which really don't have any significance to them. The rest of the links are good musical websites, found under the duo's music career, which are merely accompanied by a few iTunes and Beatport links; as those iTunes and Beatport links play a role of proof for the release itself. A USA Today article usually won't tell you precisely when the single, EP, album, etc. was released, whereas an outlet for the release is more likely to display that information, along with record label and record label catalogue info as well.

Infopage100 (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Bubbling under, the chart for those not on the chart. Not good enough. This is a bloated mess of refspam and promotion and needs to go. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have now corrected the false claim of charting in the discography. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• leaning delete - Duffbeerforme points out that they made the lower reaches of the bubbling under charts, not the main charts. Given the paucity of WP:NMUSIC otherwise, this is not enough for me - David Gerard (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although there are 109 citations, I couldn't find one good citation which would offer indepth coverage. The band definitely fails GNG. (In fact the article content is for the most part "in x year they released y" repeating all over). The charting is actually a bubbling under chart which doesn't really pass NMUSIC. What pushes this towards a delete is that there is little to no reliable secondary coverage to base an article on per WP:WHYN. I also consider this a WP:TOOSOON case. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: this is my problem with the article, the vast majority of citations are simply to prove the existence of each single or remix. There's almost nothing to prove that any of these records are notable. Even the better sources don't really tell you very much – for example, their guest mix on BBC Radio 1 isn't that special: DJs from all over the world have contributed guest mixes on Radio 1 over the years, so the mix itself wasn't notable. And when you look at the track listing, six of the seven records they played were their own remixes, so in fact it was just a good form of self-publicity. When it comes down to it, the notability rests on a song that just scraped into the lower reaches of a secondary chart in Belgium, and little else. Richard3120 (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I thought the artist did chart officially, but I guess not. Though on Steve Angello's discog page it shows that the song, "Payback" with Dimitri Vangelis & Wyman charted on an official Belgium chart. So I think that page should be corrected as well.

To know what I'm talking about, see the page here: Steve Angello discography.

Infopage100 (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Hello fellow Wikipedians:

@Mburrell:, @Nikthestunned:, @XPanettaa:, @TheMagnificentist:, @Earflaps:, and anybody else, I need your help. This may not be an article that I have created, but it is an article that I really enjoy. When this article felt like a stub, I heavily updated it, creating most of its tables, and adding most of its 109 references; in so many words, I must admit that the article was poorly written. So don't let my strenuous effort die in vain. It would be a pain to see that be so; help out instead. If you can, pay forth a visit to the aforementioned article, and subsequently update it. Please. Thank you.

Infopage100 (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - While there is some coverage in notable media, none of that coverage is in any way significant, consisting almost entirely of song announcements and passing mentions (basically the musician equivalent of press releases). 'Bubbling under' chart is not enough to establish notability. Nikthestunned 11:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - These references are notable, so the page should stay a little while longer:

*http://edmspain.es/dimitri-vangelis-wyman-yves-v-daylight/

*http://edmidentity.com/2016/05/24/yves-v-daylight/

*http://daily-beat.com/dimitri-vangelis-wyman-x-steve-angello-payback-original-mix/

*http://www.musictimes.com/articles/57035/20151204/dimitri-vangelis-wyman-label-buce-records-single-running.htm

*https://ventsmagazine.com/2016/05/23/yves-v-dimitri-vangelis-wyman-bring-daylight%e2%80%8f/

Infopage100 (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I also added this ref.

http://weraveyou.com/2016/04/21/steve-angello-dimitri-vangelis-wymans-anthem-payback-two-years-old/ Infopage100 (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Infopage100, firstly, you have already voted so your second "keep" vote should be struck. Secondly, you say the references are notable, but most of them really aren't – Weraveyou and EDM Spain are blogs, while Daily Beat describes itself as a "global youth media company", whatever that means. EDM Identity is a company that promotes artists so its reviews may not be impartial. And lastly, all the references say are basically "Dimitri Vangelis & Wyman have released this record"... that isn't evidence of why they or the record are notable. Richard3120 (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TripHobo[edit]

TripHobo (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)