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. The re-written article passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades ^Godric 08:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winnie the Pooh's Home Run Derby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Flash-in-the-pan news coverage that lasted two whole days. I have not been able to find coverage in reliable sources since then. WP:NOTNEWS. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've come across reliable sources that dedicate entire articles to the game:

1. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-01-05-disney-japans-winnie-the-pooh-flash-game-is-is-too-hard-for-children-everyone-else
2. http://kotaku.com/5973249/this-winnie-the-pooh-game-is-way-too-difficult-for-kids
3. https://www.pcgamesn.com/winnie-pooh-home-run-derby-not-suitable-children
4. https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/winnie-the-pooh-home-run-derby-reddit-4chan/
5. https://medium.com/@JustDuncanIt/the-winnie-the-pooh-home-run-derby-experience-e920aa3f8cd8

It feels like there's enough to meet the WP:GNG, and I have a hard time applying something like WP:NOTNEWS to a video game. The scope of the article isn't about the event of Neogaf plays Winnie the Pooh Home Run Derby and finds it to be difficult, even if that's what initially spurred the coverage. Its about a game. Sergecross73 msg me 19:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Medium link is self-published. Is there a reason you included it? Mark Schierbecker (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, you're right about Medium. I'm not totally familiar with that one. I think I was confusing it for another site. Struck. Sergecross73 msg me 21:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The last AFD, which closed unanimously as "Keep", also noted that it had received coverage from NBC Sports, which would be pretty high level coverage for this sort of thing. The link is dead now, but it doesn't change that the coverage occurred, (and could maybe be archived and resurrected someday too.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only one reliable signification source (NBC Sports article). Other sources are niche news sources and caspule sized articles at that thus not the world at large required at notability signification in depth. Spshu (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This assessment is incorrect. The consensus at WP:VG/S explicitly lists Kotaku and Eurogamer as reliable sources, and PCGamesN and Daily Dot are frequently used at AFDs to prove notability. As its article suggests, PCGamesN has many editorial staff from past reliable source print magazines as well. I will concede I'm unfamiliar with "Medium" though, I'm open to input on whether or not that should be used. But we've got enough sources to keep even with throwing that one out. Sergecross73 msg me 20:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This assessment is spot on. While Kotaku, Eurogamer, PCGamesN and Daily Dot may be reliable sources, they do not meet notability source level ("...those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time...") as they are niche news, ie. cover gaming thus are not the "world at large". Also, some of the articles are short thus don't meet the significant coverage in length, just like a encapsulate review doesn't meet notability requirements. Spshu (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no. One of the main purposes of WP:VG/S is for determining notability of video games. You're free to disagree, but your personal assessment is trumped by long-standing consensus at the WikiProject level. Sergecross73 msg me 21:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NO, the purpose of WP:VG/S is determining if a source is reliable not determining notability, those are determined here at AfD. WP:N is a WP wide consensus which trumps a wikiproject consensus (unless deferred to). Spshu (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, are you telling me the purpose of what I've been maintaining for the last 5-7 years? Not sure how you feel you're more qualified to define a project you haven't been involved in, (or flippantly contradict my last 5-7 years of AFD votes that have largely been based around WP:VG/S and have matched consensus) but you are wrong. Feel free to question the WikiProject on it. Yes, obviously every article at AFD is evaluated on an individual basis, but one of the main points of WP:VG/S is determining whether or not websites are reliable, and usable in determining notability. Websites like Eurogamer and Kotaku have a consensus and precedent for being sources that help meet the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 23:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• keep sources meet the GNG. If someone wants to challenge the list of reliable sources for video games, feel free to open an RfC. But that's where we are and I think it reasonable. Hobit (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've completely rewritten the entire article according to the reliable sources above, in addition to a few others I found in the process. Please look it over prior to giving your !vote, as its an entirely different article from when it was nominated. Its certainly not perfect - it was a quick and dirty type thing considering time's a factor at AFD - but it shows it was possible to expand it out of stub status, make it more encyclopedic in tone, and meet the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 20:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep thanks to the great job Sergecross73 did rewriting the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: please consider whether a !vote was placed before or after Sergecross73's rewrite when evaluating. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Sergecross73 and Guy Macon. Lepricavark (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Fielding (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)

Very little info on him, everything in the article is including his twin brother Owen. (They have appeared in 1-2 movies as the same character). Hawkeye75 (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article about a soccer/football player turn up in google search than this actor. Ksite (fansite last I knew) has him in a minor role for an episode of Minority Report TV show. Young Actor Awards seem such a minor award that I have not heard about, so that doesn't help his notability. Spshu (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete way to little coverage to justify an article on an 11-year-old. We should respect the privacy rights of minors and require true shows of notability before creating articles on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A search fails to find any significant coverage in the reliable sources. Of the six references in the article, only the second appears to be significant, and it's from a source of questionable reliability. The first is to the company's website, while the last three are for patents. Other hits I could find online are merely company profiles and the like. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The second source cited in the article, which the nominator thought might be significant, appears at StreetArticles.com, where it appears that anyone can register and then produce an article, with no editorial supervision; it thus fails as a reliable source per WP:UGC. The piece cited lists its author as "Caller Ready", suggesting a close connection with the subject. Google searches for ("callerready") turned up no significant independent coverage; a Google News search produced no hits at all. Pretty clear failure to meet WP:GNG. Ammodramus (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG as I could find no significant coverage of the company in any independent reliable sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are no WP:RS in the article. The subject fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG.--Jersey92 (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as a copyright violation. Hut 8.5 20:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alampady Cricket Stadium, Alampady, Kasaragod (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)

Was deprodded without comment or improvement. Searches turned up nothing to show this passes WP:GNG, and it certainly doesn't pass WP:GEOFEAT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as a coyvio from http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/cricket-stadium-coming-up-in-kasaragod/article7128301.ece -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terrence C. Harris (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)

Terrence C. Harris was an NCO with 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment (E Company and A Company). He parachuted into Normandy on D-Day and did not survive the month of June 1944. He did not attain rank or receive awards to qualify him under WP:SOLDIER and his untimely death leaves him with no general notability. His portrayal in Band of Brothers on TV is minimal. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER, has no chance of meeting the GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Reb1981 (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

500 Miles High (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)

• The article has no references. It does not show any reason for notability. Reb1981 (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither of those is a valid reason for deletion. If there are no references, one should first try to find some. If no reason for notability is shown, it should be sought. See WP:BEFORE. Now if one could say "There are no references, and a reasonable search convinces me that there are no sources." that would be different. DES ^(talk) 10:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep The article is now nearly 500 words long, with 18 cited sources. It shows billboard charting of an album containing it, an award for "Best improvisational solo", and covers by such notable artists as Stan Getz. Significant critical commentary is quoted. The song is a recognized jazz standard. I think it is pretty clearly notable. I also think that a pretty basic WP:BEFORE search should have found at least some of this. The first few references I found were listed in our article about the album, which was the only wiki-link in the version nominated for deletion. Many of the rest appear in a basic google search. DES ^(talk) 13:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reb1981, Do you still think that the article "does not show any reason for notability."? DES ^(talk) 13:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • JECompton Thanks so much, DES for adding that info! I wanted to know more about this beautiful song. JECompton (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article now has several references and Google book searches turned up several more.[1][2][3] The song is notable. The article has many problems (Return to Forever, not for, etc.), but should saved (I'll take a crack at it). —Ojorojo (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Dlohcierekim 22:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, hell of an improvement on the original stub. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article has been greatly expanded and referenced, and the song's notability is evidenced by the "Critical reception" section in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• sugestion If nominator could withdraw the nomination, this could be closed sooner. Dlohcierekim 13:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep given the improvements and newly added sources. Aoba47 (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirects at editorial discretion Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Mathematics of Love (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)

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Can't find much beyond performance dates from google searches. bojo | talk 22:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I also tried to find a reliable source for the subject. However I am not able to find anything "concreate." Reb1981 (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to Hannah Fry. The article is a theatre play written by Cherríe Moraga that ran for four days last year at Stanford. Other than reviews by the colleges' publications ([4] and [5]), I haven't been able to find any significant independent sources for this to meet WP:GNG. The author of the article @Tblightning8394: says as much in their edit summary: ...Cherrie Moraga's newest un-published drama set to debut August 2017. The structure of the article also need work; the lead is a confused mix of plot, the character list lacks cast members and the rest of the article reads like a cross between WP:NOTESSAY and a WP:COATRACK.

My initial internet searches for "The Mathematics of Love" led me to a 2014 TEDx talk and book by Fry, which is far more notable by virtue of sourcing (Washington Post, stuff.co.nz, Livemint, etc) than this play, hence the retargeting. Fuebaey (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Lynn Foxx (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 significant award. And even if it counts, the subject patently fails gng so a technical sng pass should not get more weight than being an effectively unsourced blp. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not significant enough notabilityWiki Cell (talk) 08:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Plenty of sources online, Has won 1 significent award, Meets PORNBIO #1 and #2, and meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The working consensus from recent AfD debates is "Cream Dream" and other niche categories fall short on the significance part of the "well-known and significant industry award" test in PORNBIO. Other editors take it further: Technical PORNBIO pass - significant reliable sources = non notable. A raw Google search without naming the non-trivial, reliable hits is of little value. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The award is not significant. The pornography industry intentionally spills out promotional material. We need to identify coverage outside of this promotional PR juggernaut to show notability and none is shown here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- nothing encyclopedically relevant here. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Burke (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 dont believe that claims to have been romantically involved with hugh heffner are grounds to have a wikipedia article. Otherwise fails gng and pornbio. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Concur with nominator. Finnegas (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Turbo:_A_Power_Rangers_Movie#Soundtrack. MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie Original Motion Picture Soundtrack (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 sources cited since January 2007 (10 years); article contains only two sections and no "References" or "External links" sections. DBZFan30 (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect - There is plenty of room in the main article of Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie and no reason to have a separate article for this. If no one objects in a couple of days I'll be WP:BOLD and just do it. - Pmedema (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up - I have been WP:BOLD and merged this into the main article. Closing admin if you would like a #REDIRECT Turbo:_A_Power_Rangers_Movie#Soundtrack can be used instead of deleting. I don't like to do non-admin closures as I prefer other final opinions.

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 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014 film)#Video games. MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014 video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There are 3 things wrong with this article:

1. No sources cited since August 2015.
2. The lead is somewhat poorly written.
3. All of the sections talk about who voices who in the game, which is unsourced and violates WP:GAMECRUFT. DBZFan30 (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• IGN announcement, Polygon announcement, and I didn't see anything else in the WP:VGRS search. Redirect to the 2014 film, maybe? Game exists, and the title is not out of the realm of possibility. --Izno (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, redirect to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014 film)#Video games. --Izno (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014 film)#Video games, as suggested by Izno. Games based on popular movie licenses tend to get little interest from either hardcore gamers or reliable sources, but they're still a likely search term for a general readership, I think. The article on the film also serves as a good spot for editors to add sourced info on the game should they come across any. Doubtful that we'll ever get enough reliably sourced content on the subject to justify a separate article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Halverson (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:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 07:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:NHOCKEY. 0 registered starts in the NHL, only registered starts are with the AHL. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Gandrud (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)

Autobiography of a politician who doesn't appear to meet WP:NPOLITICIAN criteria for inclusion. Sources I found appear to be WP:ROUTINE coverage. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Offices and elections—city council in Carpinteria, California, population 13,000; unsuccessful candidate for state legislature—don't satisfy criteria for automatic notability at WP:NPOL. "First openly gay member of California Republican Party Board of Directors" (in 2011) probably doesn't suffice; in a 2013 deletion discussion (in which I cast a losing !vote against deletion), consensus seemed to be that "first LGBT officeholder" was no longer sufficient to establish notability. Google and Google News searches turn up no substantial independent coverage; the best non-local item I could find was an Advocate article, cited in the article, which ran only three paragraphs. Seems to fail WP:GNG. Ammodramus (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Serving on the city council of a small city does not confer an automatic WP:NPOL pass, being an unelected candidate for election to the state legislature does not confer an automatic WP:NPOL pass, being the first out gay person to hold an otherwise non-notable political office (such as a small town city council or a state-level political party's board of directors) does not confer an automatic WP:NPOL pass — and the referencing here consists of three primary sources, three namechecks of his existence in articles that aren't about him, and two articles which are about him but are mere blurbs in length, so the sourcing is nowhere near good enough to hand him a WP:GNG pass instead. And even if a person can be shown to properly clear a Wikipedia notability standard, he still doesn't get to start or write the article himself per our conflict of interest rules. Bearcat (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Poorly written autobiography evidenced by language such as accusing opponents of "foot-dragging". No evidence of notability of this small town councillor. AusLondonder (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete being on the city council of such a small city is not a sign of notability. Holding state party offices is not a sign of notability. Maybe if he was head of the state party, but not the offices he held. Being on the state recreational trails commission clearly not. Being a failed candidate for state legislature definiately not. So no claim to notability exists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing in the article indicates that he passes WP:NPOLITICIAN. Fails WP:GNG.--Jersey92 (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No real evidence of notability. There was a time when being an openly gay politician was notable, but now is a big yawn (which is a good thing). --Guy Macon (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Maybe an openly gay Iranian or Saudi pol would be notable today, but definitely not in California.Icewhiz (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable WP: NPOLITICIAN.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gifty Powers (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)

Subject of article fails basic criteria for inclusion into the encylopedia most notably, WP:GNG and has not received significant coverage in reliable sources as most references look like announcements. This seems as though it is a case of WP:TOOSOON and i !vote a Strong Delete until she has been disscussed in popular and reliable press. Celestina007 (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This reads like a gossip column. Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: The article meets WP:GNG criteria and she is popularly known for the reality show Big Brother Nigeria 2017 just like Ebuka Obi-Uchendu and everyone who made it to the reality show over the years. She has also been discussed in reliable source, which includes Newspapers, Magazines and so on. So i believe the article may require assistant in improving the article and not deleting it. I Advice you make research on the topic "Gifty Powers" also.--Obari2Kay (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As observed by Comatmebro the only time the subject of your article is discussed, it is by gossip blogs and even at that, there is no in-depth coverage of her supposed career or 'fame', by those gossip blogs. Now @Obari2Kay you however, did magnify my interest in your article's subject when you mentioned she has been covered by reliable press, could you be so kind as to enlighten me and the rest of wikipedia by providing us with sources as to back up your claim of she possessing significant coverage in reliable sources? mind you, gossip blogs do not count as reliable sources, you better focus on WP:GNG so as to understand my arguement, the notability of your articles subject fails the aforementioned guideline woefully. my take is still a Strong delete also read up WP:NotJustYet , Happy Editing sir. Celestina007 (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Redirect - Sources and the article are all WP:FANCRUFT and not notable. Redirect to Big Brother Naija as a viable search term - Pmedema (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I somewhat but not completely disagree with Wikipedia’s decision to deem The Daily Mail not a reliable source. The articles I have read from The Daily Mail were all sound articles. Perhaps that is because I don’t read their celebrity material. So I can sympathize with Wikipedians who say The Daily Mail is not a reliable due to their celebrity/tabloid material. If you rule out The Daily Mail as a reliable source, then the article fails to meet WP:GNG because it has not received coverage in reliable sources. Gossipy sources, news aggregrators and the Daily Mail celebrity gossip type converage are not reliable sources. desmay (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Daily Mail it is a reliable source ^[1] and it is also a notable print media as Vanguard (Nigeria). I strongly believe this article has more references, so i am going to dig deep to find them. All i ask for is 10 day's and nothing more to convince you it's meet WP:GNG.--Obari2Kay (talk) 06:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The subject of this article fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. She hasn't been discussed in significant detail. The article is written in a promotional tone, and the content of the sources cited are gossip material at best. Being a participant in a reality show isn't enough to establish notability.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subject fails WP:GNG, being a participant at the BBN is not enough to establish notability. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subject fails WP:GNGWiki Cell (talk) 08:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: not notable. Darreg (talk) 09:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Altsoft Xml2PDF (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 found no notability. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:GNG. I don't see that this is notable above the so many other available converter programs available. It hasn't made a historical difference as a product from a company, and the essay WP:NSOFT can help with this argument. - Pmedema (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent references. The componentsource.com EL has a 'buy it now' link so is not an independent review. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GenWorks (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, and non-notable. The refs are mostly PR DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Searching only found sources that promote this company rather than mention it in relation to something else. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and fails GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G3. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fruitling Fern (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)

Hoax. No such plant known as "Fruitling Fern" or "Equisetopsidada". Some of the text is copied from Equisetopsida while the remainder is blatant nonsense. Plantdrew (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hoax. Surprisingly restrained approach there, actually, but blew it with the wrestling mud puppies at the end.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i have done nothing wrong! i found and cataloged this plant myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlantAss (talk • contribs) 12:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - tagged for speedy delete as hoax.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Layfield bullying and harassment allegations (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 am pretty skeptical this article should exist. First, it appears to remove the context of the situation from his wider career, which I believe leads to this being an Attack page here. Yes, sources exist, but a whole article? The very title says "allegations"; really, an article on speculation? Second, I am doubtful that the sources rise to the kind of national interest level that would indicate this deserves such a lengthy article. I am seeing this as in breach of Wikipedia:Undue as much as my other issues. I think this needs to be re-merged with the John Layfield page. There appears to have been no real discussion of the splitting off of this content from the Layfield page on that page's talk page, so I think a fuller conversation needs to be had about the appropriateness of this page at the very least. In the end though, I'm just not sure this is notable enough independently from Layfield himself (who has his own page). Isingness (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As the creator of the article I just want to start of and say that I did not intend for this to be an attack on him or anyone else. I can agree that most of the content could be merged into his original article but I don't see how that makes it less of an attack or puts a bad light on him. The main reason I made it was becuse it was getting too big for to just be a section in his article, I brought it up with the wrestling project and I was meet with no resistence so I went ahead with it. I was kind of prepared for this to happen but I thought it was possible that the story would develop more in the future, since the issue seems to have been dropped mostly now since Ranallo signed an agrement with the company I feel like it's probbaly going to calm down. Another option which has also been brought up by other editors on the wrestling project is that it could be merged into an article by the name Hazing in WWE since many of the sources indicate this is a wider issue within the company. As for the "allegations" in the title I modeled it after the Bill Cosby article which has "allegations" in the article name, I figured it was the most appropriate name for it.★Trekker (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trekker, I do appreciate that generally the process is to spin off articles when the content becomes undue for the main page, and in most cases I would usually agree with this kind of article. I would also agree that Hazing in WWE would be an appropriate place for this too if the article is AFD'd with a merge consensus. I am by no means insinuating that you yourself did anything in the spirit of an attack; my concerns are about how we are addressing the content as policy. As regards Cosby, that was a case with a far higher level of public prominence (though I likely would have wanted a different title for that as well). One area we may differ, is in that I think the content about the topic in general is too extensive considering the limited amount of incidents discussed. In the end, I think in most other cases a merge discussion would be equally appropriate as an AFD to deal with that specific issue, excepting the concerns I raised above, which is why I chose to start an AFD instead. Isingness (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's all good. I feel like Hazing in professional wrestling would also be good because there may very well be a lot of cases of this kind of behaviour in many other wrestling companies (although this title might end up being a bit indiscriminate and wide) but the problem is that I feel like some of what is described in the currect article goes a bit beyond what would be concidered hazing, such as the Blackman incident (which also doesn't seem to have taken place in a lockerroom but in public), which is why I put harassment in the original title as well.★Trekker (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The recent Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly harassment scandals at Fox News don't have their own articles and those saw the ouster of their CEO and top star. This is more comparable to the Bill Demott situation, but unlike that scandal this one turned out to be a bust. Much of the hoopla surrounded the Ranallo situation and he has since said his departure didn't have to do with Layfield. A paragraph on Ranallo speculation, including the Justin Roberts allegations that got clumped with it, and perhaps his quotes about hazing Miz, should be suffice on the main article. Other stuff, like the Blue Meanie incident should be included in the career section because it was worked into a storyline. Lots of the other stuff really have no place in an encyclopedia. I don't think there's enough here to rework into another separate article.LM2000 (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about the Styles, Edge, Blackman, Renee and Hardy's situations then? Or the fact that many have said that this is a recurring problem in the world of professional wrestling, something which is endorsed by higher ups and has been for a long time? The fact that this is very simalar to the DeMott situation (and has been compared to that by some sources here) just tells me that this something which could easily be a subject of an article like Hazing in WWE/professional wrestling.★Trekker (talk) 11:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think we can use most of them. Some, like Blackman and Muhammad Hassan, are told through third party accounts. Others, like Edge, didn't describe it as "hazing" or "harassment"; the stories resurfaced after the Ranallo speculation and were brushed off by JBL as "locker room pranks" which have been known to the internet for years.LM2000 (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also worry that creating one article about all scandals would violate WP:SYN.LM2000 (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least in some cases should what Layfield believes it to be really matter when people like René Duprée clearly talk about what he claimed Layfield did to him as harassment? I also don't see how something being known for years but not largely acknowledged matters either. You know, I'm not upset that this separate article will more than likely be deleted but I am kind of disappointed that there has been a pushback at even acknowledging that this is has been reported as a reoccuring issue. As far as WWE go and not an individual level this is clearly being reported on by at least the Wrestling Observer and the Pro Wrestling Torch as being rooted in an old fashioned pro wrestling behaviour which dates back a long time and isn't receted by the higher ups.★Trekker (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Layfield's side of the story does matter per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Even the title Hazing in WWE is a NPOV-vio because there's dispute about what actually happened and to what extent and we cannot endorse one side and present every allegation as fact. As with Demott, we should describe the scandal, but it must be given WP:DUE weight, and unlike Demott JBL isn't getting fired for this. That's why I suggested mentioning just the allegations with the most weight from reliable sources (Ranallo and Roberts).LM2000 (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But he openly admitted that he hazed people, like with the Miz. It's pretty clear that he simply doesn't think that that's a bad thing. As for only mentioning Ranallo and Roberts I refuse to agree with that, again, he openly admited to misteating Mizanin, and Dupree's accusations were also brought up by Paste for example, as were some others, the Styles incident for example has been reported repeatedly and seems to have had witnesses. The Hardy's examples were writen in their own WWE published book and describes Layfiled encuraging them to commit crimes. I don't see how excluding so many of the stories is apropriate at all. Again, this has been repeatedly reported as being a reoccuring issue, how is it good to just include the most recent examples then just becuse they sparked the debate? Would allegations of backstage mistreatment in WWE be a more appropriate title in that case, or would that be too broad and still POV?★Trekker (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the number of allegations to include on his article, and how much weight they should be given, is something that should be worked out on JBL's talk page; two was my recommendation based on my interpretation of the sources. I don't think a separate article is appropriate per what Isingness, 86.3.174 and myself have said, but if one exists it needs "allegations" somewhere in the title, like the current one. I also don't want to come across as a Layfield defender here, I always try to rework a controversy section (WP:CSECTION) when I see one and I've done it for articles across the political spectrum. Some controversies are notable and pass WP:10YT but are given WP:UNDUE weight, some are just WP:NOTNEWS, some are only covered by unreliable sources, etc. As you said in a response above, this issue is dropped and has calmed down. It got a few weeks worth of play in the press in JBL's 20+ years as a public figure and he is left largely unaffected by the scandal. Compare this to the the Cosby allegations article, which blew up in late 2014 and continues with Cosby going to court in July.LM2000 (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you have to worry LM2000 I don't think anyone will accuse you of being Layfield defender or anything like that, I for one respects you immensely and think you're a great unbiased editor, (and probbaly a lot more experienced than myself). I do take everything you say into accout and I see your points, I just find it very unfair that some accussation would get ignored becuse the source that reported on them aren't quite as reputable as some of the others and that a larger issue isn't being accnowleged in general. As many of the sources state, this is very well a overarching problem in the backstage enviroment of the professional wrestling business and I do think that could do for it's own article, either confined to a spesific company like WWE or just the industry in general.★Trekker (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your work, so I really don't like having to !vote this way. If the article is reshaped without enough changes I'm scared it'll come back to AfD again. I recently saw that the Kayfabe article was trimmed up nicely, an article on backstage politics in wrestling might compliment it nicely. Another idea is to create an article like National Football League controversies and National Basketball Association criticisms and controversies. I've often wondered why we don't have articles on the 1990s WWF scandals, that would be a good starting place for them and could hold some of this article if it's merged or deleted.LM2000 (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think something like the WWE criticisms and controversies or Criticism of WWE could be a great idea! It's funny that you brought up the 90s scandals since I recently made the redirect WWF sex and drug scandal with the intent of turning it into an article in the future. That stuff almost brought down the entire North American wrestling industry.★Trekker (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reason for this type of article to exist. This seems to be another example, similar to Persona and reception of Roman Reigns, of the wrestling fandom taking things too far and attempting (in good faith) to promote and push their own views and agendas via Wikipedia because they are too invested in the product. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 03:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of these sources are not from exclusively wrestling sources but of rather mainstream magazines so this is not just some fan agenda on my or anyone else's part.★Trekker (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't agree with the idea that particles like these have no reason to exist. If a controversy happens to be notable enough it is.★Trekker (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course articles on controversies and notable subjects are warranted, but unfortunately there is a tendency for wrestling fans to want to validate their own opinions and version of events on Wikipedia. Yes, the content is sourced and the edits done in good faith but that doesn't change the situation here, which is that a bunch of people have added (sourced) content to support the widely-held opinion among wrestling fans that JBL is a bully. Which, whether it is true or not, is not WP:NPOV and not particularly encyclopedic content. Similar to the example of Reigns that I mentioned, which originally started because a bunch of people were adding sourced criticism to his career section, which I challenged and the consensus was to create a separate "persona and reception" section for that content, now that section has so much content that it was moved to its own article which is pretty much a week-by-week catalog of criticisms and negative fan reaction towards Reigns. Again, not really relevant or suitable for Wikipedia but people can't help themselves, and because the content is sourced, done in good faith and fits most editors' opinion then it's difficult to do anything to remove it. Not necessarily accusing you of this personally BTW, I know that you didn't add a lot of this content, it's just something that tends to happen.86.3.174.49 (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair, I wasn't around when the Reigns split happened so I didn't that it was a recurring problem here. Either way it's pretty clear that consensus says that this article should not stay, can this be speed up by an admin or the like?★Trekker (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is there any way to speed up this deletion? I think most agree that it should not stay a separate article and that the content (if it should be kept) should be relocated.★Trekker (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete any reliable sourced, encyclopedic material can be covered in the article on John Layfield. There is absolutely no reason to have a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as said above, this could easily all be covered in JBL's main article. TDOldSpice (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Maybe these allegations are notable, but the be allegations about this dude. Is he notable? If true, then this should be part of an article about him, or maybe something in an article about the WWE. Writting about allegations has a potential for libel so every claim must be really well backed up or deleted ASAP.--Pgapunk (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Can be covered in the John Layfield article. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn't a merge mean that? I mean this title would be a redirection to that section of the John Layfield article?--Pgapunk (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the issue is the appropriateness of the title, so a redirect wouldn't solve that particular problem. Deletions don't mean this content can't go back to the JBL page though; I don't think anyone here is arguing that he isn't notable as one of the most prominent wrestlers of the last twenty years. Isingness (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Mergeto John Layfield for now, though I think making an article about Hazing in WWE or Hazing in professional wrestling could have legs if it covered more than just his incidents. Pinguinn 🐧 17:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Navigator Records (Russia) (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)

Relevance is not shown. Sources are not reliable. In Russian Wikipedia, the article is in two lines and is submitted for deletion. It seems like the PR itself.--Jürgen Klinsmann1990 (talk) 02:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I edited the article earlier and tried to clean it up, but I couldn't find any refs to support WP:GNG. It's also telling that the Russian project has only one good source (talking to the label's president http://www.rollingstone.ru/social/interview/15341.html), and they could easily use Russian-language sources. Seems to be a niche label. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrija Matic (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)

Author removed PROD. Fails WP:NHOOPS. bojo | talk 19:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete very simple, it fails WP:NBASKETBALL. - Pmedema (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete total failure of notability guidelines for basketball players. We cannot build such articles around only the webpage of the university the subject attends. This would lead to creating articles on not just every college basketball and football palyer, which we are not prepared to do, but also probably almsot every track, volleyball, swimmer and other sports as well. This is not "Wikipedia of college athletes". I cringe at the mess this would create.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Potential COI, the user who created this article is User:Andrija19961 and may be the player himself. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Paquin (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)

Author removed PROD. Fails WP:NHOOPS. bojo | talk 19:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of meeting any notability criterion. —swpb^T 18:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no indendent sources. We can not have articles on collegiate sportspeople based only on the website of their college.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NCOLLATH. South Nashua (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No evidence of notability.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lonnie Rivera (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)

Author removed PROD. Fails WP:NHOOPS. bojo | talk 19:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete part of a series of articles either created by a fellow player at American University, or by someone who is a very strong fan. None of these show these players come anywhere near meeting notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FLORIDA Airspace monitoring and management system (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. The Banner talk 18:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP It was a Important Air Surveilance System for decades, when it was new it was one of the modernst Air surveilance systems but it was also one of the air suveilance systems who stayed very long in active service and paved the way for the today system. "Fails GNG" is just a cover argument for The Banners constant hunt on me and articels i worked on. The number of from The banner nominated articels i had written (especaly about the Divison General) shows exactly that it is not about GNG and draves a clear picture... Very interesting is that ther is now a long line of AfD s from against articels from me..it is no coincidence that he now drag FLORIDA Airspace monitoring and management system and SRF Airspace monitoring and management systemto AfD after they exist already 4 years with "Fail WP GNG" at the same time put no other radar system who was not written from me in question (like Austrian air defense or French air defence radar systems) who's WP GNG is even weaker.FFA P-16 (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well written and with ample sources. A national air defense system is notable - if it is covered in RS - and here it is.Icewhiz (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dead links and YouTube are reliable sources? The Banner talk 19:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • • The Banner are you unable to use googel? And blind to see this?
      • Alber Wüst: Die Schweizerische Fliegerabwehr. 2011, ISBN 978-3-905616-20-0
      • Uno Zero Zero – Ein Jahrhundert Schweizer Luftwaffe. Aeropublications, Teufen/ZH 2013, ISBN 978-3-9524239-0-5
      • Louis Geiger, Franz Betschon| Erinnerungen an die Armee 61. Huber Frauenfeld 2014, ISBN 978-3-7193-1513-9
      • Neue Zürcher Zeitung: Hubacher und der Maulwurf
      • Flinte, das Internet der Luftwaffe. Allgemeine schweizerische Militärzeitschrift ASMZ, Heft 6, Band 163, 1997 FFA P-16 (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • • Constructively - Some of the links are dead FFA P-16 - I suggest you update to stable link or archive them. I was able to reach some of them via google - e.g. [6] which 404s via google on title goes to [7]. In contrast I wasn't able to find "Übersicht Radarsysteme der Schweizer Luftfahrt" easily - it's also dead. Some of the titles should also be fixed (particularly giving context to the youtube) On the other hand - User:The Banner - while youtube in itself isn't reliable, if what is shown there is an historical film - then it probably is something. And just because a link is dead - doesn't mean there is no source. And I bet you didn't chase down the book references (I didn't).Icewhiz (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - just quick search brings up plenty of additional sources - books - [8] shows several pages of relevant English language mentions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• FFA P-16: These might be good for incorporation in the article: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. This is from a quick search + filtering for English language sources - but you need to try and get the full source (google-books is great for finding stuff (and shows up nice in text preview) - but for stuff from the last century with copyright - you often have to get the book itself.Icewhiz (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are quite a few sources on this topic, and the nomination statement does not set out any problems with them that might mean that they don't satisfy the notability criteria. Nick-D (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep: Well sourced and notable. I will work on improving the article, especially the referencing, in the next week or so. FFA P-16 should bring his concerns about this being a bad-faith nomination to WP:ANI. This is not the place to discuss them. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not appear to meet WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unsouced biography of a living person. Nothing in the article suggests Nygard would pass any academic notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete. Only possibility of passing WP:Prof is citations on GS, and these are small. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Nasir Mehmood (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)

Another personal biography. Nothing establishes that he is notable. GreenCricket (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Promotional bio created along with Faisal Sanitary Fitting. Not a notable figure. --Saqib (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Pakistani businessman, CEO and chairman of a non-notable company. I can find no significant coverage of him in reliable, independent sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom.Icewhiz (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A local company with no notable source available. GreenCricket (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as clear violations of our WP:Wikipedia is not a webhost policy. SwisterTwister talk 02:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG as I could find no significant coverage of the company in independent reliable sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Could have been speedy deleted. I tried to edit the article to strip away puffery and irrelevant details and I was left with a modified opening sentence.... -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This person's greatest achievement is winning one national beauty contest, although I cannot find clear guidance on this I do not believe this makes her notable. PatGallacher (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes GNG. Significant coverage in numerous reliable sources. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My reasoning for creating the article was simply because she had appeared on the August 2016 Deaths page as a red link. Unless the Recent Deaths page is now including non-notable people, it should be kept. Silent sovereign (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither winning a pagent or dying should merit a wikipedia page. Legacypac (talk) 08:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An opinion not based on policies or guidelines. Consider WP:GNG which she passes, easily. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep her "greatest achievement" was not winning a beauty pageant, nor dying, but deploying the celebrity therefrom to advocate for assistance and research of the plight of those afflicted with a disease that is mostly inherited by Black people (thereby disproportionately afflicting those with less resources and access to care than is typical of chronic disease-sufferers in the First World, and eliciting less largesse for research and relief for the same reasons). Her looks made her, literally, a more attractive and more effective spokesperson for this charitable cause. Her death as a victim of the disease, ironically, also raises sickle cell anemia's profile and enhances her efficacy posthumously. That she has garnered less First World press than reflects the celebrity as a positive role model she enjoyed among Blacks is to be expected (I first heard of her on a rap radio station). She's been dead less than a year: Give her reputation the time and opportunity to reverberate that it deserves. FactStraight (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon My Planet (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 assertion of notability. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The article here mentions that Pardon My Planet runs in about 200 print newspapers. The main cartoon source at Comics Kingdom states it as "more than" 130 papers. Is there some accepted threshold for notability? — Loadmaster (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is the threshold. SL93 (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I could only find trivial mentions. It does seem odd because this comic strip is published in more than 150 newspapers, including major ones. That isn't enough for Wikipedia notability. SL93 (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. It does seem odd that it couldn't pass, but if it does, it would have already. South Nashua (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Seems like a lot of blogs write about this webcomic, but no reliable sources do, at all. There's no sources to use to write this article with, so per notability guidelines, it should be deleted. ~Mable (chat) 08:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolás Córdoba (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)

Subject fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NOLY (qualifying for the team isn't enough) and WP:NGYMNAST (won no medals; participating isn't enough) Chris Troutman (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Competed at the Olympics, in multiple events, per source 1, so easily meeting WP:NOLY. And won a gold medal at the Pan Am Games too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Olympians are always given the presumption of being notable, especially when from non-English speaking countries. Every other athlete he competed with at the Olympics has an article. It's not that he just qualified for the team - he competed. The term qualification appears to be to determine qualifying to the finals - appears to be no different than heats or preliminary round in other sports. Just how you slash the field in multiple rounds. RonSigPi (talk) 02:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Presumed notable per WP:NOLYMPICS, which states:

  Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924)...

Athletes do not have to qualify for the finals or win medals to meet this guideline. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WHY MARS IS RED ? (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 subject, just random facts that are probably already stated in Mars lovkal (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WON2 (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 looked at this article to try to make the references inline, after the creator deleted the 'bitch tag' from the article and put it on the talk page. The sources given in the bottom section are all primary however, and I was unable to find reliable sources for the article. I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#WON2, where the comments further confirmed my concern about this article's notability. After a couple of hours of searching, I can't find any proof of this meeting WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article doesn't meet WP:GNG. XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 17:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Multiple WP:VG members couldn't find sourcing, nor is it present at the article, so I doubt it meets the WP:GNG. Willing to reconsider if someone finds some reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Death of Marilyn Monroe. MBisanz ^talk 01:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eunice R. Murray (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)

Eunice Murray was notable for only one thing: being Marilyn Monroe's last housekeeper, who was the first to notice that something was wrong with her on the night she died. She has become a part of the conspiracy theories surrounding Monroe's death, but otherwise has no notability. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

• I spent some time looking at this article recently and found much more material than expected about Murray and her relationships with Monroe and with Monroe's famous psychiatrist, Ralph Greenson. I don't think a straight deletion of the content in this article would be appropriate, nor would it be helpful to those interested in Monroe, or in Dr. Greenson for that matter. On the other hand, I think a reasonable case can be made for a merge and redirect to Death of Marilyn Monroe. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've read extensively on Monroe (spent several months in 2015 getting the article to FA status), and came across nothing from reputable sources that would make Murray notable on her own. Yes, she features somewhat prominently in the conspiracy theories (which are pretty ridiculous when you take a closer look at them), but that is not a reason for her to have a standalone article.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing shows that Murray is indepdently notable enough to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 06:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Leduc (Quebec politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a mayor. While the city is large enough that he would be able to keep an article that was properly sourced to media coverage about his term as mayor, it's not large enough to earn him a presumption of notability on the basis of sourcing as weak as what we have here: one primary source profile on the city's own website, and one (deadlinked) raw table of the election results themselves. And even on a Google News search, all I can find is one WP:BLP1E blip about him accusing another politician of defamation, and a bunch of glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things and people otherwise. This simply isn't enough to satisfy a notability criterion for which success or failure hinges on clearing WP:GNG on the sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. In June 2016 the CBC reported, "The City of Brossard has faced intense media scrutiny lately", citing some controversies in Leduc's administration. [22] At present he seems to be in the middle of continuing controversy about the city's plastic bag ban, with Leduc in the crosshairs of attacks by the Retail Council of Canada and the plastic bag industry ("the Mayor of Brossard, Mr. Paul Leduc, persisted in his obstinacy and refusal to have any discussion with stakeholders and adopted a bylaw prohibiting the distribution of plastic shopping bags."[23]; "The Mayor of Brossard Knows Best? Paul Leduc Ignores Facts, Pushes His Political Agenda"[24]), but in the independent news coverage about this issue I didn't find much that focuses on Leduc. As things stand, the case for notability strikes me as marginal, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone else can turn up more, especially if they can make a more effective search for French-language sources than I was able to do. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the article can't be improved if not there. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason for an article to be kept in and of itself — it has to be proven that improvement is definitively possible on the basis of hard proof that the necessary depth of sourcing to meet GNG unconditionally exists beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is not enough to just assert that improvement could eventually become possible maybe who knows anything could happen someday yadda yadda — you've got to show that improvability is already a foregone conclusion today, because a significant number of viable sources already exists today. Bearcat (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Small town mayor with minor/routine coverage. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. I've looked at the sources mentioned above and searched. If better sources are found I will reconsider. Gab4gab (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough coverage of him and not a significant enough position to justify an article. Media coverage on actions of the city of Brossard should lead to more information in the article on Brossard.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

WP:BLP of a mayor, in a city not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability just for existing. This literally just states that she exists, and sources the fact to a single piece of WP:ROUTINE coverage of the results on election night, with no evidence of anywhere near enough substantive coverage about her to get her past the "who have received significant press coverage" condition in our inclusion criteria for mayors. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Quick Google search turns up a few items of potential interest, especially "Chateauguay mayor celebrated as hero for turning down bribe" and a bunch of related stories in both English and French. More investigation could be warranted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete mayors of places of less than 50,000 are almost never notable, and no reason is shown that Simon would be an exception.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Color-blind casting. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested redirect: per Chive Fungi, 'This content can be a section within Color-blind casting. There's not enough reliable sources talking about this for there to be an article.' A WP:BEFORE indicates that what sources there are are mostly unreliable (blogs and zines), with the occasional RS using the phrase in passing (often in any case in a different conetext to films) and subjecting it to insufficient cooverage on its own merits to demonstrate WP:DEPTH or WP:PERSISTENT coverage. Using the word will satisfy WP:WIKTIONARY, but not WP. Fails WP:GNG. Support suggestion made to redirect to Colour-blind casting, if the sources can be much improved. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per ChiveFungi and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Funcrunch (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. Yes, there isn't enough usage, enough of a phenomenon, for an article. The term has been raised around a couple of casting choices, that of "Annie" and Mary Jane in Spiderman, but it falls short of GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Color-blind casting or delete. Per ChiveFungi not enough sources exist for this to pass notability guidelines. Sro23 (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per others. This was created last January, and I proposed it for deletion with the following rationale: "Article does not appear to meet WP:GNG, also WP:CONTENTFORK problems with Color-blind casting, and WP:SPA concerns with the article creator raised at Talk:Whitewashing in film." Salt if necessary to avoid a third article creation. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Javed Khan (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 really notable and fails WP:POLITICIAN. Article has so far attracted only promotional editors. Capitals00 (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this was created by me but I do agree it doesn't pass the criteria on politicians therefore delete. --Saqib (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - i created this bio after I realised he should warrant an entry because he was often quoted in the news but for sure he don't pass the criteria at WP:Politician. --Saqib (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree per nom. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 11:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a low level party PR person is just not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable WP:POLITICIAN.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ifeanyi Anagwu (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)

subject fails WP:PROF and WP:BASIC as nothing substantial could be found about the subject. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 14:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 14:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 14:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As observed by nominator @Oluwa2Chainz the subject of our discussion fails WP:PROF & in my opinion doesnt merit inclusion into the encylopedia.Celestina007 »» (talk to me) 20:38, 28 April 2017
• Delete This is an unsourced article on a living person. Beyond that, none of the statements in the article would lead to him coming even close to meeting the notability requirements for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:Prof. "He has authored many books and international journal papers.": No sign of them on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:PROF. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pizo (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 hoax? Can't find much about them or match them conclusively to one of the redlinked players at 1903–04 FC Barcelona season. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 14:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 14:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 14:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 14:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 14:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've tried and I can't find anything, partially because there is no first name. Only Pizo in relation to FC Barcelona I come up with is Pizo Gómez who is definitely not the person described in this article. I've searched through several news archives as well. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Tried to locate sourcing, and can't find anything. Possible WP:HOAX, but definite WP:GNG and WP:V fail. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 16:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - if he really played that many full internationals and also for Barcelona, then he would at least have some mentions in reliable sources Spiderone 09:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability, likely hoax. GiantSnowman 10:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - probably hoax -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. This is a clear hoax. Among many issues, there's no evidence that the subject made 60 appearances for Uruguay; the RSSSF listing on Uruguay's international appearances includes no such player. Any player with this kind of a career for FC Barcelona or Uruguay would generate a large number of substantial records in reliable sources. And, finally, there's one more glaring error - the subject couldn't have won the Spanish league because it wasn't founded until 1929. Calamondin12 (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above comments, would possibly recommend speedy as well per WP:HOAX and WP:SNOW. Seems to be a hoax or a fake, and I truly doubt that any such player named Pizo existed that appeared for both Uruguay and Barcelona without any coverage. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied as a hoax. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George Nick (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)

Cross-wiki fake. Deleted in Russian Wikipedia as cross-wiki fake. All articles in all languages are written by the same user. References or do not contain any mention of this notorious "George Nick", or fake sources (that is fake from Vatikan official). Advanced search in the Vatican official site - They do not know such a person. TenBaseT (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Flying Cranes Recordings (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)