< 12 August	14 August >

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Eryılmaz[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 06:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:GNG. Not certain what ravenswing assessment was made on, especially as before efforts to more clearly establish notability were done, the existing article had a link to a national newspaper, Hürriyet, covering the national team, with a mention of Eryılmaz. Other sources that establish notability include Haberler, a major online newspaper in Turkey, Doğan Haber Ajansı, a Turkish news agency, Sportstv, a national sports publication, Erzurum Gazetesi, a local newspaper, Bursada Bugün, another local newspaper, and Çayyolu Haber, a national news magazine. These were found on the first two pages of Google results, and there are pages more with references from Turkish media on both a local and national level. --LauraHale (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Look. Stop. Just please stop. You are a veteran editor with serious experience, and I am just flabbergasted that you are tossing up these sources in AfD after AfD that you know full well (or should) do not satisfy the GNG. A mere mention of the subject's name does not meet the GNG, period, ever, whether the source involved is a blogger or the largest circulation newspaper in the continent. A list in a roster does not meet the GNG, period, ever. The GNG holds that: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." (emphasis mine) Not a single source you've thrown up in any of these AfDs provides significant, non-trivial coverage to any of the subjects. Ravenswing 01:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG per the sources provided by LauraHale. It is obvious nominator doesn't read WP:BEFORE, or else just doesn't care. Smartyllama (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would love to see the sources that LauraHale and Smartyllama claim meet GNG. I read every single one currently on her article and none of them mention her more than once other than the stats page (and the last only list her as a member of a team). This is strictly WP:ROUTINE coverage (most of the articles are brief summaries of game matches with her name listed among those that scored) and nothing with significant coverage as required and defined by the GNG (Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material). Yosemiter (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plays for national team in Turkey. I don't see that WP:NHOCKEY applies to the majority of women ice hockey players if you look at its affiliated essay. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is not one top women's league in the world listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment. Why is that? Hmlarson (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This has been explained to you more than once, and I can't help it if you're not listening. Firstly, NHOCKEY does not, and never has, accorded presumptive notability to playing for a national team; Criterion #6 states "Played on a senior national team for the World Championship, in the highest pool the IIHF maintained in any given year." The Turkish women's team has never played for the World Championship.
Secondly -- and this has been explained to you as well -- Criterion #2 refers to two specific periods in hockey history: the 19th century pre-professional Canadian leagues, and the Cold War era where the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia required their players to play in domestic amateur-only leagues.
Finally -- and this likewise has been explained to you -- the reason that women's leagues aren't listed in NHOCKEY/LA is that nowhere in the world does women's hockey receive enough coverage to be able to declare every player who's ever played in such a league presumptively notable, and individual players must rise and fall with the GNG; it's unfortunate, but the world has neither asked you nor me what it's supposed to consider worthy of note. Would you like to propound a valid ground upon which to keep? Ravenswing 05:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY No indication of wide GNG. Article is well referenced, however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites or brief routine mentions. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails NHOCKEY, and the notion that this player passes GNG is just plain silly. I viewed all the references used above and they all prove that Nil exists, and plays hockey, but that is about it.18abruce (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm going to make almost the exact same argument I made for deleting the Sinem Yalçındağ article. I am also having trouble finding English language sources to satisfy WP:GNG. The level of competition doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NHOCKEY. The Turkish sources described above do not seem to be any indepth profiles of her, but merely routine coverage of the team. The clincher for me is that she has no article on the Turkish Wikipedia, even with all the Turkish language sources used for this article. I know the Turkish Wikipedia has been blocked since April, but if her career had been notable up to that point, wouldn't there be something about her there? Can a Turkish player who is not considered notable enough for a Turkish article be notable enough for an English one? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't find the argument "if [one or another female hockey player in a Turkish semi-professional league] were notable, there would already be an article about her in the Turkish Wikipedia" compelling. New articles about notable topics are still being added to the English Wikipedia every day; not all of them are newly notable on the day their article goes live, either. The lack of an article is not ipso facto proof that one was proposed and rejected as lacking notability. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 20:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with you if that were the only criteria we were using. I'm saying that after we've exhausted English sourcing and still can't agree, that it's one more argument tipping the scales against notability. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY or WP:NSPORTS. Routine sports coverage (which is all that is provided) is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:02, 22 August 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saniya Zia Ul Haq[edit]

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

doesn't pass WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no coverage found. Greenbörg (talk) 11:29, 17 August 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) — fortunavelut luna 07:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vusamazulu Credo Mutwa[edit]

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

Article about an "author and activist" that is sourced only to the subject of the article himself. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

::We have the case of a crew of vandals in which Thomas.W is deleting in bad-faith several articles with the intention of creating disruption. I call this an act of vandalism by a Wikipedia user who is abusing his editor's privileges. Oficinalis (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC) Comment of block evading vandal stricken.[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cocainaenvenenada. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The version of the article from 24 June, prior to editing by Oficinalis, was suitably sourced. I've reverted to that version (while retaining the AFD tag). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that the article has been reverted to the stable version that existed before the sockpuppet appeared. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:28, 14 August 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

N-Dimensional rotation matrix generation algorithm[edit]

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

Not a suitable topic for an article. I proposed it for deletion when it was just one method; it’s been expanded since but not in a good way. It’s even clearer it’s not on a single topic, or at least not one we don’t already have articles on, such as Orthogonal matrix and Rotation matrix. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The original creator of the article has written his response here on this page's talk page. Bakilas (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 20:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Without regard to the present quality of the article: I believe this is an actual topic. Perhaps not a very notable one (like the topic of rotational invariance of physical laws), but important enough for those who actually must generate such matrices in practical problems. I'd agree with the page creator that it could be included in rotation matrix, but it would be too specialized for inclusion there. YohanN7 (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Rotation matrix is too narrow and article, being on such matrices in 3D primarily. The article Orthogonal matrix is at an appropriate level and already covers the same ground at the end of the section Elementary constructions, in an encyclopaedic way. There is no need for a separate article on the same subject, where the content added is content unsuited to Wikipedia, per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. I can't evaluate the sources, but as a layperson this seems far too specialized for a general purpose reference work. Sandstein 10:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTTEXTBOOK. This is also much too specialized for a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ delete - copyvio of http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.ajcam.20170702.04.html. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, except that article is CC 4.0 and is cited at the bottom, so I'm not 100% sure... I should also note that both this article and that one are probably by the same person. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The version I proposed for deletion (linked above or check the history) contained just one method, the one in that paper, and normally we do not have articles on methods unless they are especially notable, which this clearly was not. Also the article’s creator is the same as the author of that paper, based on their name and their focus on this one article. Since then they’ve added more methods, so it is more on methods for orthogonal matrices, but unfortunately we already have an article on such matrices, which covers such methods in an appropriate way.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:34, 14 August 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 German presidential election, 2017#Candidates. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Engelbert Sonneborn[edit]

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

Single-sourced WP:BLP of a person whose only claim of notability is that he was a minor fringe candidate in a presidential election. As always, this is not a claim of notability that hands a person a free pass over WP:NPOL just because he exists -- to get an article, he would have to either have already had preexisting notability for other reasons, or be able to show quite a lot more than just two pieces of media coverage of which one was written by his own son. Bearcat (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a quick search finds lots more coverage, in major newspapers and specifically about him (and his candidature), some of which sources are used in the German article on him. Warofdreams talk 22:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these sources are about his candidacy. I have been unable to find out more about him than the fact that he is a nice old man. —Kusma (t·c) 18:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There does not seem much more to be said about him than "#REDIRECT German presidential election, 2017". This is a classic case of WP:BLP1E. The main thing he is notable for is that his son used the candidacy to criticise Frank-Walter Steinmeier over the latter's lack of support for Murat Kurnaz, which is probably better placed in articles about Steinmeier or Kurnaz. —Kusma (t·c) 10:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page on the German Wikipedia has more about him, as well as more more references. There are also other sources ([1][2][3]...) that write about him. I don't speak German, but he seems to have significant coverage, and therefore passes the general notability guideline. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 18:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are in the context of the 2017 presidential election, and none of them say anything in depth about him. —Kusma (t·c) 18:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In my opinion it fails WP:NPOLITICIAN.-Umair Aj (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:NPOLITICIAN fail and there's nothing better out there. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: no consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the treatment by the subject on German WP demonstrates not only importance but the availability of sourcing for encyclopedic biography. There is a difference between a failed candidate for the national legislature and a candidate for national presidency that drew 3/4 of a percent of the vote — which is a historically significant number. Carrite (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to German presidential election, 2017. With all due respect to my fellow Germans over at de-wiki, whose strict inclusion standards I often criticized, this is not really someone who is actually notable outside this one event. He is mentioned in the election's article though, so redirecting makes more sense than deleting. Regards So Why 08:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to German presidential election, 2017#Candidates; the mention there is the appropriate level of coverage for this joke candidacy. Sandstein 09:39, 21 August 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James D. Robinson IV[edit]

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

Companion article oto RRE Ventures, the adjoining AfD. Obvious promotional intent--the same single purpose account wrote the two articles. Similarly nothing here but a list of companies he has invested in (repeated twice in the article) and similar directory information. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe this article is OK, after I rewrote the piece. It was so clearly a resume cut and pasted into WP. Someone needs to take the URLS and make them into real citations. The original was really lazy work. I have no interest in doing the same for RRE Ventures. The author of that article is user:Jdriv, who I believe is the selfsame James D. Robinson IV and has an obvious COI. Rhadow (talk) 11:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 15:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- primarily known for RRE Ventures, which has been deleted at AfD. There's nothing else there, so delete. Sources I see are not independent of the company and / or PR-driven. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill business person who has done nothing really notable. Bearian (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article meets GNG standard: significant coverage from independent sources. The only argument left is that the subject is commonplace. Having a powerful father, going to Harvard Business School, and starting a VC firm may seem commonplace, because you often read about them, but how many people actually do it? Compare the number with how many articles there are about college professors, for example. Or the number of articles about ball-players. Rhadow (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:50, 13 August 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 no consensus. Verging on keep; most editors feel that the promotionalism issue can be (or has now been) addressed through editing. Sandstein 09:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Bachelder[edit]

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

Clearest case of G11 for a BLP I've ever seen, but that was declined and the SPA creator contested the PROD. Notability doesn't even come into the picture here: WP:NOTSPAM and WP:DEL4 apply. The only purpose of this article is to promote the subject and it would need to be entirely rewritten to be in line with the fundamental principle of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not an advertising platform. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep TonyBallioni, you link to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#4 as a reason to delete. This reads "Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content." There is no advertising or spam here, only text about Bachelder's work which is referenced to and supported by high-quality mainstream sources, including Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Forbes, etc. of which there are plenty more besides those currently referenced – just use the news tab in your own nomination. I don't see how you can say that the current text isn't relevant or encyclopedic content. It describes exactly what she is known for as is reflected in the sources. Have you read them?

Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen is a major chain and Bachelder ran it for ten years. Business writers tend to judge things by the numbers and the numbers were phenomenal, so their reviews tend to reflect that bias. It sounds like you are saying that if the sources are positive, the subject must be deleted because otherwise it would be promotional. If we can find negative or just skeptical sources, their opinions should also be included here, assuming that they meet the source requirements and biographies policies.

Bachelder was previously president of KFC, and by her own account failed in this post, which she discusses as a learning experience.[4] There is probably more written about that somewhere. This material should be added to the article. She wrote a good deal about her early life and career in the New York Times and this too should probably be represented in some form. Again, there are dozens of pieces in well-known outlets which have not yet been used here. It sounds like you haven't read anything but are just saying that you don't like it.South by southwest (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: South by southwest has made only 7 edits and is the author of Cheryl Bachelder. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not nominating this for deletion on the basis of notability, which is a guideline. I am nominating it for deletion based on our policy on excluding promotion, whlch is also just as much a part of the notability guideline as the sourcing requirements are (see point 2 in WP:N). Your response here shows that you are on Wikipedia with the intent of promoting the subject, and further strengthens the case for deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I responded here because you asked me to. You also asked me to post to the discussion page of the article. I did, but you never replied. It's not clear how anything in this link of yours is applicable. I don't even know Cheryl Bachelder except from reading about her. No one paid me to write about her, and promoting her is not the reason I am on Wikipedia. I added an internal link to the article from Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen Inc. because the "orphaned" banner asked people to do this.

If you feel that the coverage of Bachelder in the sources referenced is unduly positive, it seems to me that the right solution is to find sources which are more critical to balance them out. I have already suggested one vein of further research, about her failed stint as president of KFC. Perhaps you can think of another. Or maybe you can write something yourself and get it published, then we can include a summary of your criticisms and attribute them to you. Any of these would seem more constructive than deleting well-referenced material about a person who very easily meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion.South by southwest (talk) 06:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. Properly sourced. No worse than many other biographies of business people. The only issue here seems to be that it was created by an editor without a long editing history, which is only an issue if one is looking at the editors rather than the articles. Our readers don't come here to look at the backgrounds of editors. They come for the information contained in the articles. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an obvious vanity piece for the promotion of the BLP subject. It's little more than a CV - like a social media entry - and doesn't even include any traditional bio information. It is a vehicle for spam for her companies. See WP:DCOI and WP:COINOTBIAS. That makes it a clear G11 and just a plethora of sources never alone adds up to notability anyway. Whether or not it applies here, and whether or not the article passes notability and/or MoS standards, the article also has all the hallmarks of having been written by the subject's employee, PR agency, or an otherwise regular Wikipedia editor plying their wares. A practice which is not only a COI, but a conflict with policy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant promotion It is absolutely impossible that anyone but a pr flack would write "Bachelder's career path stands out somewhat among those of high-powered executives for having been interpersed with several periods working as a full-time mother and homemaker". Not even the person herself would write that. No naive volunteer copying our sometimes promotional articles would put in something as bad as that. I am thinking of speedying as deliberate violation of tou, which I consider one form of vandalism. She probably is notable enough for an article, but we delete vandalism, not try to improve it. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- - ""Bachelder's career path stands out somewhat among those of high-powered executives for having been interpersed with several periods working as a full-time mother and homemaker" Not even the person herself would write that." Actually, Bachelder did pretty much write that in Bloomberg as referenced and attributed.[5] As you can see, the quote "I tell women, Don't be afraid to manage your life" is specifically about this period.South by southwest (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- My personal favourite was for her trademark style of management, which she calls "servant leadership.", which is clearly something that you would find on the back of a book duskjacket. Given that she is an author who has written a book on the topic, it suggests that the work was in fact written by her publisher or someone related. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - As is clearly referenced, it's from a review of the book in Business Insider.[6] If you read that review, you will find that my excerpt was cursory and understated – there's a lot gushier stuff in there. Personally I agree that the phrase sounds hokey; that's one reason I put it scare quotes. Judging from Goudreau's description it seems to boil down to prioritizing the concerns of franchisees, which matches the themes found in other sources. For example, from the Wall Street Journal: "CEO Cheryl Bachelder Says Rebuilding Trust With Franchisees Was a Key Ingredient" [7] "Trademark" might not be an apt characterization, as the origin of the phrase would appear to be a fellow named Robert K. Greenleaf, see Servant leadership South by southwest (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep for passing WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Forbes wrote an article about her[8], Fortune interviewed her[9] and The New York Times published one she wrote about herself.[10] She was the President of KFC and the CEO of Popeye's, two household names. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. Also a Business Insider article.[11]

- None of those being reasons to speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT, especially when three editors are advancing a policy-based reason for deletion under WP:N, failure of WP:NOTSPAM to the point of being G11 eligible and meeting WP:DEL4. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - TonyBallioni, once again you are saying things that are demonstrably untrue. You nominated it for WP:G11 speedy deletion. That was declined by an admin. You seem to make a habit of distorting facts in these discussions. Please be more careful. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, and two admins above agree with me that it should be deleted via G11. I'm not destoring the facts: I mentioned in my nomination that it was declined. G11 is an ambiguous criteria and when there are disagreements on that, we sort it out at AfD. I nominated it for deletion here precisely because I thought the decline was inappropriate and wanted to take it to the community for more discussion. This is the appropriate forum for that conversation. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are absolutely right. Please accept my sincere apologies. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There may be a way to write about Bachelder in a non-biased way that creates a reliable article, but this is not it. This is so one sided and promotional, and so full of unexplained buzz words, like "servant leadership" (that also begs for deep religious questions about Bachelder, as they say at get religion, there are religious ghosts all over this article). I think the last sentance sums it up. It mentions a Wall Street Journal article, where Bachelder was interviewed, along with dozens of other businesswomen. From the extremely little substantive information I get from this article, I have to say I have postive vibes for Bachelder, but the article is lacking in basic detailed depth. The article is way too plagued with gushing prose to survive. Right now I see no reason that the substantive parts should not be included in the article on Popeyes. A new attempt at an article on Bachelder could be done, but it should deal with her whole life, and if we cannot get insights onto things like her educational background and what motivated her to be a full-time mother, than I question weather she is really truly a public figure to the extent having an article on her is justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "I think the last sentence sums it up. It mentions a Wall Street Journal article, where Bachelder was interviewed, along with dozens of other businesswomen." Check the citations, it refers to a book authored by Joann Lublin, who is also the management news editor of the Wall Street Journal.[12][13] I agree that the article should do a better job of covering aspects of her life besides her career, but how can this be done if it is also deleted? You can edit and add to the prose right now. I've put in a start on what should be a collaborative process.South by southwest (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most articles mention personal lives, education, and at least when it is relevant religion. Both "servant leadership" and the decision to be a full-time mother make me suspect there might be strong religious issues involved here, although I could be wrong. Servant leadership is often seen to have deep Christian roots and to derive from a statement by Jesus Christ. From this article it appears that Bachelder appeared fully grown in 1978, at some point left the corporate world to raise some children who we know nothing about, not even their number, and presumably her husband worked full time, but we do not actually know such a man exists, in 1995 she reentered the corporate world, for reasons which are somehow obscure in the case of this allegedly notable person, and was what some would have us believe was a key mover at Dominos Pizza, a company founded by a very devout Catholic, which may or may not be relevant in some way, After being there 5 years, she took the lead at KFC, which is just a divsion of Yum Brands. After 3 years when she seems to have done nothing substantive, she then did nothing of note for 3 years. What is this article not telling us?John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What does any of this have to do with deleting or keeping the article? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, I read through Bachelder's Linkedin profile. If "not linkedin" is ground for deletion, than this article needs to go. I did learn some interesting things. She was the General Manager of Life Savers from 1991-1992, after having been VP of Marketing there. At the time Life Savers was owned by RJR Nabisco. From 1993-1994 she lists herself as having been a consultant with Nabisco. There is this article https://www.forbes.com/sites/whitneyjohnson/2016/07/18/cheryl-bachelder-cooking-up-success-with-failure-louisiana-style/#73c8514470b4 from Forbes that admits that Bachelder did poorly at KFC, but tries to downplay that by putting it in quotes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a discussion about how well Batchelder did her job. If you have reliable sources that say she did poorly, add those to the article. The question here is whether or not Batchelder is notable enough to merit a biography on Wikipedia. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that is only one question of many that can go into deletion. WP:DEL-REASON lists 13 reasons other than lack of notability for deletion, and this article currently meets at least three of them before even taking into account the question of notability (WP:DEL1, WP:DEL4, WP:DEL14). Johnpacklambert is, from what I can tell, arguing that she is not notable because the coverage is simply run of the mill. He can correct me if I am wrong in my reading. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia"? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Obviously it does not violate #1 (since speedy deletion has been declined). We're here to discuss whether #13 (as quoted above) is applicable, so that's out too. #4 cites "advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content" (bolding mine), which is patently not the case here. So your argument is specious. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - It was a bad G11 decline in my opinion and the opinion of others above, so that is up for discussion, which means DEL1 could apply. DEL4 certainly applies here. DEL14 links to WP:NOT which includes WP:NOTSPAM, something that is much more broad than DEL4 and has been used as rationale for deletion even if the language is neutral, which is patently not the case here. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Did you notice the caveat at the beginning of that list? It says "subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page". In other words, if you think the article is overly promotional, make it less promotional instead of deleting it. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus exists between sides.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Provisional~~ Keep the person is likely notable, but the article has serious issues. I think I've improved it enough (and reverted a blatantly promotional version of Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen Inc.‎). Power~enwiki (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC) (edited Power~enwiki (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Keep The G11 was refused. The Prod was refused. And now the AFD will be refused as the subject is clearly notable and AFD is not cleanup. What I tell you three times is true. Andrew D. (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The promotional language has been toned down some, but could still be converted to a more encyclopedic tone in places; however, it's not so blatantly promotional as to require deletion. Passes the WP:GNG but as mentioned above that's uncontested. I'd like to note that the claim that she "developed" servant leadership is demonstrably false — according to our servant leadership article, that management philosophy dates back at least as far as the 1970s — so I'm going to restore the mention of servant leadership but change the verb from "developed" to "followed". —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 06:50, 21 August 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. Nakon 23:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Over Top[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Over Top" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Ironically the only 2 significant mentions I can find is Nintendo Life asking for it to come to Virtual Console in 2008 and then giving it a poor review in 2017 when they finally brought it to Virtual Console. Besides that there aren't any other significant mentions, so it fails WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot find multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS, to satisfy WP:GNG. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:NVG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:23, 19 August 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. Nakon 23:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SphereFACE[edit]

(Find video game sources: "SphereFACE" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Sources used on the article are mostly rather dubious, either primary sources or tiny unknown websites. The ones that are reliable are very brief. It doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG on closer inspection. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Refbomb'ed to look like something, but not covered in-depth by WP:VG/RS (see custom Google search engine). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cannot find multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS, to satisfy WP:GNG. HCG is a brief request for funding. Looks like a professionally-made WP:PROMO for Kickstarter purposes. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:04, 14 August 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) —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indonesian football transfers 2017[edit]

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

Deprodded without improvement, rationale was "fix it then. Deletion is not cleanup". While the sentiment is correct, it failed to address the concern for deletion which was "Uncited article, delete as per WP:NOTSTATS". So now we're here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There do seem to be a lot of such lists in Category:Football transfers summer 2017 and Category:Association football transfers. I've no take as to the notability of this list, though. (As for the lack of citations, well, deletion is not cleanup.) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And, well WP:OSE isn't really a valid argument. The deletion argument is not one of notability, as there is plenty of sourcing regarding any trade at the professional level of a sport. Rather, the deletion rationale is one of WP:NOTSTATS. What makes this particular list of these particular trades notable? Oh yeah, that would be... nothing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTSTATS doesn't actually apply here because this is a list of transfers, not a list of statistics. With that argument not applicable, what makes these not notable? CJK09 (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are plenty of coverage and sources regarding this topic online (yes mostly in Indonesian but that is understandable). Deletion is not clean up and I've started adding citations. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not only is deletion not cleanup, but NOTSTATS doesn't even apply here - this isn't a list of statistics, it's a list of transfers, which are completely different. (Note: I'm the one who removed the PROD template) CJK09 (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, actually, no it's not. WP:STATS includes WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and no one has yet to explain why this list does not fall under that guideline.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a list of all Indonesian football transfers from this year. That is a very well-defined set and is in no way indiscriminate. CJK09 (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate further, here is the full text of INDISCRIMINATE:

Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. (e.g., statistics from the main article United States presidential election, 2012 have been moved to a related article Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012).

"Unexplained statistics". Not only is the list not of statistics but instead of events, proper context is given to the items of the list.

Done

"Accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability". The article does this.

Done

"Articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context". There certainly should be more than one sentence of context, but that's not a deletion issue, that's a "fix it" issue. Anyway, the bare minimum is established and should be improved upon.

In progress (I would do this myself, except that I know almost nothing about football and would be likely to make a factual mistake)

"Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article." This is exactly what this article does. To avoid the main article on Liga 1 being clogged with lengthy lists of transfers, the lists are instead located on this separate page.

Done

I'm really not sure what you're seeing here. And once again, you're completely ignoring the fact that this page lists events, not statistics. CJK09 (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CJK09, in the future, please don't use label templates to illustrate your points at Afd, as proscribed at WP:AFDFORMAT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:LISTN, plenty of coverage of transfers in Indonesian football in local language sources. Fenix down (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - standard list; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 20:23, 14 August 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. So Why 07:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Muntazir[edit]

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

Promotional stuff. No mention in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Greenbörg (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered in multiple refs [14] and the U.S. sanctions against him seem significant. Mar4d (talk) 05:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being mentioned in multiple refs is not enough. Muntazir is an academic, but he meets no criteria for notability of an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gets significant mentions by the BBC, NYT and The Guardian too, as well as in several books ([15], [16]). The U.S. Treasury lists him among "eight individuals who hold leadership positions within the designated foreign terrorist organization, Lashkar-e Tayyiba". A leadership position within Lashkar-e-Taiba (actually playing a key role in their communication and recruiting strategy) appears quite notable. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 09:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per IP and additionally, The Hindu. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 02:05, 17 August 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Boyle[edit]

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

Fails GNG, WP:JOURNALIST. If he was executive editor, that probably wouldn't be the case, but it seems he isn't much more than a run-of-the-mill right wing political commentator, without much other than his title at Breitbart keeping this piece from a CSD. South Nashua (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 16 August 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 keep. Clearly notable, otherwise no vaild reason to delete and therefore closing per WP:SK#2. (non-admin closure) KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 22:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kanta Gupta[edit]

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

Non-notable professor. The fact that she died around a year and half ago and a date of death on Wikipedia was not posted until today shows the failure of this article's existence. Also there is very sources about this professor. All them seem to be from Winnipeg and none of them seem to show even local importance. For example none of the local newspaper (other than an empty obituary) even show this professor passed away. --Luigi Waluigi (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. FRSC is a clear pass of WP:PROF#C3 and her distinguished professor title is a clear pass of #C5. "Death date not included" is an invalid reason for deletion, justifying a speedy keep. And the rest of the nomination statement makes clear that the nominator hasn't even considered WP:PROF, the appropriate notability guideline (not GNG) for this sort of case. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- appears to meet PROF as distinguished professor and recipient of the Krieger–Nelson Prize. An acceptable stub at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Clear pass of WP:PROF and the WP:GNG based on the sources already present in the article. An article not being up-to-date is not a valid rationale for deletion. – Joe (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - There are tags for instances where articles need to be updated. It is a part of mainting the encyclopedia but is by no means a reason to delete an article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:27, 13 August 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rowdy Johnson Band[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. The sources are a blog and a local paper writing about a show that I can't find any evidence ever actually aired. The text is promotional and the article author claimed the photos are from facebook and official website but tagged the photos themselves "own work" so either they aren't free images or the article author is the article subject. Dammitkevin (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant vanity page lacking significant, independent third party sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:06, 13 August 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. So Why 07:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alper Solak[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY like all the Turkish hockey player articles that have appeared here lately. Deadman137 (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY No indication of wide GNG. Article is well referenced, however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites or brief routine mentions. Furthermore, I'm seeing significant elements of the information in the article being garnered from primary sources. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:52, 18 August 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. So Why 07:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Harvey (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable player who has only competed in lower-tier professional leagues. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 09:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY LibStar (talk) 07:21, 19 August 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) —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anjali Thakker[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep fails WP:NHOCKEY but not WP:GNG with coverage in all major NZ newspapers. NealeFamily (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NHOCKEY #1 (Spanish pro league highest paid player 2015-16, also played in the French Elite league in 2015, thus having played in both paid women's inline leagues in Europe) and meets WP:GNG with coverage in all major NZ newspapers as well as European papers, including Sweden's largest paper Aftonbladet. All time most decorated NZ ice and inline hockey player. setti21 (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2017

Keep meets WP:NHOCKEY #1 has played more than 10 games in Spain's top professional women's league; #3 has played over 200 games in top national leagues in New Zealand, Spain, Australia, Sweden and France; #4 all time top scorer in the New Zealand Women's National Ice Hockey League; and meets WP:GNG with coverage in all major NZ newspapers as well as European newspapers. boltasaurus (talk) 00:11, 18 August 2017

Keep per WP:NHOCKEY #1 though its affiliated essay looks like it needs to be updated with women's leagues. Hmlarson (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG, and perhaps WP:NHOCKEY/LA needs updating, but in any case the subject passes GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 17:04, 18 August 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuf Halil[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY No indication of wide GNG. Article is well referenced, however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites or brief routine mentions. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:51, 18 August 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Betül Kahraman[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passing NHOCKEY is not relevant here. She passes WP:GNG, which supersedes, this based on the Turkish media coverage. This includes a number of mentions in the regional publication Çağdaş Kocaeli, along with additional mentions in the national press sportstv, Doğan Haber Ajansı and Fanatik and national online newspaper Haberler. --LauraHale (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG per the excellent work by LauraHale. At that point, WP:NHOCKEY is irrelevant. Smartyllama (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Despite the claims that there are numerous sources for this player, LauraHale correctly states they are "mentions". Mentions are not significant coverage per GNG, specifically: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The first source listed is likely the best as she was interviewed about why she plays hockey, although the article is not specifically about her as she is one of several interviewed. 2 and 3 are stats pages. 4 is a photo where she is mentioned in the caption. 5 (and 6 as a reprint of the same article) are WP:ROUTINE coverage of a game where she is listed as a team member. 7 is more routine game coverage where she is only mentioned because it was her 17th birthday. 8 and 9 is more routine game coverage where she scored a point. 10 is about the team, she is mentioned in passing. 11, 12 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 are all ended with lists of the members of the team, of which she was one. 23 lists her as a trainer. Which one of these articles merits GNG? Yosemiter (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Yosemiter, to whom I'm grateful for doing the legwork on a couple of these AfDs so that I don't have to do so. I remain dismayed that LauraHale and Smartyllama are pulling knee-jerk Keeps on these Turkish women's hockey articles without coming up with a single cite that meets the GNG's requirements, and are notably silent when asked to identify specific cites they claim do. Ravenswing 01:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is a member of the Turkey women's national ice hockey team. Victuallers (talk) 10:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ... which satisfies no notability criteria; NHOCKEY does not, nor ever has, confer presumptive notability to people who simply have belonged to national teams. Would you like to advocate a legitimate criterion to keep? Ravenswing 14:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY No indication of wide GNG. Article is well referenced (ignoring the fact that 11 of those sources are present simply to confirm two statements - complete overkill), however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites or brief routine mentions. Furthermore, I'm seeing significant elements of the information in the article being garnered from primary sources. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She plays for Ankara University SK, which competes in the Turkish Women's Ice Hockey League - a semi-professional league which is the highest level of women's ice hockey in Turkey. Passes WP:NHOCKEY point 2. Narky Blert (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Narky Blert: please re-read NHOCKEY again, nowhere does it ever mention highest league in a country. There is nothing preventing her ("lack of access") from playing in higher leagues. But even then, women's leagues have not yet proven to have inherently pre-established notability, unless they have played in the top level IIHF tournament or the Olympics. So she must pass GNG. Yosemiter (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter: Do you think she should emigrate? Narky Blert (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: It is more about what #2 actually means (especially if you read the first line in NHOCKEY telling you use the list of known GNG leagues for player notability). #2 specifically refers to a time when players could not play for a professional or higher level league at all, primarily when there were no professional leagues anywhere (pre-NHL) and Eastern Bloc "amateur" leagues (they were amateur by strict definition only because the government prevented them from being professional or emigrating). In this case, there is nothing barring from emigrating if she really wanted to try to make a NWHL team (which also has no inherent notability for players). But since NHOCKEY does not really apply to women's leagues, then GNG is the only applicable guideline and you can read my previous analysis of the sources found in the above comments. Yosemiter (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter: I'm tempted to call this WP:LAWYERING. Narky Blert (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: That seems a stretch as one of the primary authors of NHOCKEY is User:Ravenswing. Considering NHOCKEY is governed and written by the ice hockey wikiproject, do you think that we haven't done some research into it before making it a guideline? The hardest part about the guideline (which is still subject to GNG, even if a player meets the SNG, they can be deleted for not meeting the GNG) is the phrasing. How do you propose we write #2 with the intent of my above paragraph? (Feel free to comment at this discussion were we are currently looking at removing entirely.) Yosemiter (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not only tempted to suggest that you're making up your own idiosyncratic interpretation of what you want the criterion to say as opposed to what it really does say, I'm giving in to that temptation. As it happens, Yosemiter is right. I'm the author of the NHOCKEY criteria, and that's exactly what Criterion #2 was intended to address. Further, no level of women's hockey is supported by NHOCKEY, as has been stated exhaustively in many places and many discussions, for the unfortunate reason that nowhere in the world does any level of women's hockey receive enough coverage so as to presumptively declare every female hockey player notable. There is one exception, and one exception alone, which are women hockey players competing in the Olympic Games (that being covered under WP:NOLYMPICS). Ravenswing 19:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To back up Ravenswing and Yosemiter, both of whom spend an awful lot of time on the sport and checking into references, the critereon says nothing about "top level in a nation" at all. Perhaps other sport guidelines do, the hockey guideline is not here to be fair or represent equality, it is here to represent the expectation for notability. I don't understand how it could be wikilawyering for someone to try to explain what was misunderstood to you.18abruce (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY, and I can't find anything that would give a male player a GNG pass, so it probably is a fail for a female player as well.18abruce (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No English sources to show notability, and no article on the Turkish Wikipedia either. [[17]] Her career predated the Turkish ban so there should be something. There should be an article on her there first before she can be considered notable here. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't find the argument "if [one or another female hockey player in a Turkish semi-professional league] were notable, there would already be an article about her in the Turkish Wikipedia" compelling. New articles about notable topics are still being added to the English Wikipedia every day; not all of them are newly notable on the day their article goes live, either. The lack of an article is not ipso facto proof that one was proposed and rejected as lacking notability. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 20:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with you if that were the only criteria we were using. I'm saying that after we've exhausted English sourcing and still can't agree, that it's one more argument tipping the scales against notability. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another example of a player who meets none of the criteria at WP:NHOCKEY or WP:NSPORTS and whose claims to meeting WP:GNG are based solely on routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 02:59, 22 August 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kübra Dadaşoğlu[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Easily passes WP:GNG, with multiple mentions in national level publications including Milliyet, Hurriyet, Sabah (newspaper) and others. While these may be in Turkish language, the repeated national level coverage gets her over the line. The article could probably use more attention from a Turkish speaking contributor to improve the article and the sourcing. This does not negate the notability based on national level coverage of her by major publications in Turkey. --LauraHale (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am not seeing significant coverage per GNG, specifically: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Anything that is just a passing mention or game coverage is typically considered WP:ROUTINE. Number 1 is a team roster. Number 2 is coverage of the Championship team going into details on the backgrounds the players who participated. Her only mention there is "Kubra Dadaşoğlu, who is the best goalkeeper in the Turkish Ice Hockey Federation Women's League, and Betul Toygar, who is the best forward player, stated that women in the first place in the East are not warmly interested in sports but they are appreciated by the success stories that extend to the championship" (more or less based on translation) and really only confirms that she was named Best Goaltender. Number 3 is a interview with what appears to be her entire team, she is quoted three times (two of which are one sentence responses) and lacks the depth of coverage needed for a GNG-worthy source as she is not the subject. Number 4 is the same article as Number 2. Number 5 mentions her as the best goaltender from the previous season. Number 6 is a brief article stating the team won the championship and the subject won best goaltender. Number 7, she is listed among other athletes invited to a training camp. Number 8, she is listed as a member if the team. Number 9 is a stats page. For a Turkish player, this coverage is better than most get. However, I am just not seeing significant depth needed for GNG. Yosemiter (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Yosemiter, to whom I'm grateful for doing the legwork on a couple of these AfDs so that I don't have to do so. I remain dismayed that LauraHale and Smartyllama are pulling knee-jerk Keeps on these Turkish women's hockey articles without coming up with a single cite that meets the GNG's requirements, and are notably silent when asked to identify specific cites they claim do. I'm sympathetic to the travails of those who'd like to see more articles on women athletes (although men's hockey in Turkey's no more notable), and I'd like to be able to take LauraHale on faith when she claims to have found GNG-qualifying cites, but after seeing such antics on several of these AfDs, it's irresponsible to do so. Ravenswing 01:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with LauraHale based on ref like 1 Also agree that having an editor with Turkish language expertise would be helpful. Context is key. Hmlarson (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is a longstanding criterion that quotes from a subject (especially in a large article full of quotes from several players) cannot be used to support the notability of a subject. I'm not sure what notability criteria is satisfied by "context," but assuredly neither the GNG nor NHOCKEY are. Ravenswing 05:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure I covered that source already with "Number 3 is a interview with what appears to be her entire team, she is quoted three times (two of which are one sentence responses) and lacks the depth of coverage needed for a GNG-worthy source as she is not the subject." (The rough translation of the third is "Does not support the family and therefore has difficulties? - Kubra Dadaşoğlu: I am Ilıcalı. A district that is a bit backward from the point of view of the Ilıca. My parents were the people who put the sport back. Yeliz Yüksel, my teacher of this physical education teacher, brought me. A teacher accepted my family that I would be in. But my parents had a little trouble because our workouts were over at the end of the day. 14 kilometers between our home and the gym. It takes about 45 minutes by bus. We can not find a bus every hour." Enough of a translation to get the gist of the content and context.) @Hmlarson: care to explain how this is significant coverage? (Not to mention GNG needs multiple.) Yosemiter (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is sufficient enough considering context. You disagree, I hear you. Hmlarson (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY No indication of wide GNG. Article is well referenced, however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites or brief routine mentions. Furthermore, I'm seeing significant elements of the information in the article being garnered from primary sources. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No English sources to show notability, and no article on the Turkish Wikipedia either. [[18]] Her career also predated the Turkish ban so there should be something if she was considered notable in her own county. There should be an article on her there first before she can be considered notable here. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't find the argument "if [one or another female hockey player in a Turkish semi-professional league] were notable, there would already be an article about her in the Turkish Wikipedia" compelling. New articles about notable topics are still being added to the English Wikipedia every day; not all of them are newly notable on the day their article goes live, either. The lack of an article is not ipso facto proof that one was proposed and rejected as lacking notability. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 20:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with you if that were the only criteria we were using. I'm saying that after we've exhausted English sourcing and still can't agree, that it's one more argument tipping the scales against notability. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:07, 21 August 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. Consensus is that the subject doesn't meet the subject-specific or general notability guidelines. Hut 8.5 20:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tanay Günay[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 18:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: NHOCKEY is not relevant. Subject passes WP:GNG based on the strength of the sources from Turkish media, including mentions in several national publications. That these sources are in Turkish, not English, is irrelvant as the national prominence of them is relevant and there are several of them. The article could be improved with someone more familiar with the language adding more information based on these sources. --LauraHale (talk) 10:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @LauraHale: After I burned a full hour poring over the cites you added in the Jana Kivell [19] and Gizem Öztaşdelen [20] AfDs, only to see that they were nothing beyond a blizzard of trivial namedrops and mentions in tables, photo captions and roster lists without a single cite that could qualify under the GNG, I would really appreciate you linking to the cites you claim meet the requirements of the GNG in this case. What you added here is more of the same -- name listed on rosters, routine sports coverage explicitly debarred as supporting notability under WP:ROUTINE, and the like -- and you are far too experienced an editor to be this unaware of the GNG's provisions, so what gives? Ravenswing 16:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am not seeing GNG-worthy sources here, specifically: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Source 1 is interesting as it is about goalkeepers in general and talks to both the subject and the other goalkeeper, but the entire thing reads like WP:ROUTINE coverage (of the "look at this odd sport and all the gear they wear" variety). #2 is broken or dead for me. #3 she is listed in a photo caption. #4 is a single sentence that says she won best goalkeeper. #5 is broken or dead, but upon finding what seems to be a reprint, it does not even mention her, just about the team winning the championship. #6 is routine game coverage of said championship, she is listed at the end of the article as a member of the team. #7 is more routine game coverage of a lower division IIHF game. #8 she is listed as a member of a team. #9 she is not mentioned at all, coverage of the national team in general. #10 is a stats sheet. #11 is a roster list. #12 she is mentioned in a list as a best goalkeeper winner. #13 is also a single sentence stating she won best goalkeeper. Other than #1 (which seems more like odd news/routine coverage of a local team than as significant coverage of the person), all are extremely brief mentions, lists or stats. None of those types of sources are enough to meet GNG. Yosemiter (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this player plays for the national team and in the Turkish Ice Hockey Women's League. Per NHOCKEY #2, a player is presumed notable if they "Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of access to a top professional league, the highest level of competition extant;". It's not clear why there are no women's leagues at all listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment. That should be updated. Hmlarson (talk) 05:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This has been explained to you more than once, and I can't help it if you're not listening. Firstly, NHOCKEY does not, and never has, accorded presumptive notability to playing for a national team; Criterion #6 states "Played on a senior national team for the World Championship, in the highest pool the IIHF maintained in any given year." The Turkish women's team has never played for the World Championship.
Secondly -- and this has been explained to you as well -- Criterion #2 refers to two specific periods in hockey history: the 19th century pre-professional Canadian leagues, and the Cold War era where the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia required their players to play in domestic amateur-only leagues.
Finally -- and this likewise has been explained to you -- the reason that women's leagues aren't listed in NHOCKEY/LA is that nowhere in the world does women's hockey receive enough coverage to be able to declare every player who's ever played in such a league presumptively notable, and individual players must rise and fall with the GNG. Would you like to propound a valid ground upon which to keep? Ravenswing 05:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenswing This is news to me, but thanks for providing some background. My questions re: the guideline are valid and will be repeated where needed. Regarding your statement about women's leagues coverage, it appears to be outdated based on a preliminary US-based Google news search for the top American women's league the National Women's Hockey League (NWHL): https://www.google.com/search?q=national+women%27s+hockey+league&newwindow=1&tbm=nws&ei=D3uWWbfdA4eN0wKguYzQDQ&start=10&sa=N&biw=913&bih=529&dpr=2 How do we go about updating the essay? Hmlarson (talk) 05:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't. There is an enormous difference between a league being notable (which the NWHL unquestioningly is) and for a sports league to receive so much coverage that every single player can be considered to meet the GNG. That is an enormously high bar to reach, and there are hockey leagues that have existed for the better part of a century that don't meet that standard. The plain fact of the matter is that the only women's sports league in the world to gain that level of coverage is the WNBA. Ravenswing 05:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -fails GNG. There seems to be a lot of confusion here about number of references equalling significant coverage. It has been quite clearly demonstrated above that all sources noted contain trivial mentions or are simply rosters / stats. Fenix down (talk) 07:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources on the page, or in a google search pass WP:GNG. NHOCKEY is clearly not met, even if it related directly to women, the subject does not play in the top leagues of the world.18abruce (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources provided don't demonstrate notability. I'm starting to feel like a broken record, and certainly don't have anything against women's hockey (I actually have attended college woman's hockey games) or Turkey (I loved visiting the country) but it's hard to make an argument that these players are notable when they are not even mentioned on the Turkish Wikipedia. Would we go to the Turkish Wikipedia and add an American sports figure that wasn't on the English Wikipedia? Since there has been a recent uptick in these articles and the same names voting for and against keeping, I think we need some policy, which I'll call WP:NOTXENO, that states if a foreign subject's notability is questioned due to poor English sourcing, as long as the subject's period of notability predates a ban (like the one facing the Turkish Wikipedia), and there's otherwise no evidence of state censorship preventing such an article, then before we add anything here there should first be an article on the foreign Wikipedia. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:27, 21 August 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 Nearchus. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 04:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Androtimus[edit]

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

Biography of a person notable only as the father of somebody else, single-sourced to a reference which is about his son. As always, notability is not inherited -- a person doesn't get a standalone article just for having his name mentioned in a biography of a more notable relative. But there's neither a standalone claim of notability in his own right, nor any sourcing that's about him in his own right, present here. Bearcat (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To also consider redirecting/merging to Nearchus and to give someone with access to more sources to assess whether notability can be established
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 16:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nearchus, where he's mentioned.—S Marshall T/C 22:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete. From looking through the sources not much is known about him beyond him being probably an important aristocrat supporter who came from Crete originally - other than that it is all about the son - so we have the historical greek text + later speculation (also very limited) on what he might have been. There's nothing useful in this article to merge (it's all already in Nearchus anyway).Icewhiz (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No reason to keep a special article on him. ——Chalk19 (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect to Nearchus. I doubt we will ever get any content except as to his son. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 19 August 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. The sole "keep" vote is marginal and not supported by anyone else, which suggests consensus to delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Tyler[edit]

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

I can find no sources to indicate that this camp passes the WP:GNG. In terms of news articles, I've only found a local source that's more about Paul Bunyan than Camp Tyler and a local blog from an organization that gave a grant to the camp. Not GNG material.

There is a book that mentions Camp Tyler, but upon inspection, the book's information about Camp Tyler is almost 100% identical to our article, verbatim. The book was published in 2011, while our article was created in 2008, so I believe this is not a copyvio on our part but an unattributed Wikipedia import on theirs. Since the information is a copy of a Wikipedia article, it doesn't qualify as a GNG source. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 17:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete it's possible that, with improvements, this article could meet WP:GEOLAND. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one of thousands of such camps. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Provisional keep~~. Using my newly granted newspaper.com access, I found a number of old newspapers talking about the subject, including describing it as the first of its kind. I request this discussion not to be closed until I had time to analyze the sources during my lunch break. Regards So Why 07:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, this is what I found: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] (incl. mentions in Michigan and Louisiana newspapers). Unfortunately, my lunch break is not nearly as long as I would have hoped so I can't provide more now but even based on this and the amount of hits (350+) I think this is sufficiently notable for inclusion, albeit barely, so weak keep. Regards So Why 12:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nothing to suggest that this camp is particularly notable when compared with others (WP:MILL). Also, Premeditated Chaos, I'm also working on the Feb '09 backlog :) DrStrauss talk 16:36, 19 August 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aspire Trust[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGO. No significant news coverage, no national or regional scope. May be out of business. Rogermx (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC) Rogermx (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:27, 13 August 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lilashah[edit]

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

My PROD was declined (properly) as the article had been sent to AfD under a different title, but that discussion 9 years ago closed as no consensus, and there is still no evidence of notability. He is mentioned in connection with Asaram, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Delete. Vanamonde (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 15:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:26, 13 August 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naoto Saito[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE and GNG. His results: http://www.isuresults.com/bios/isufs00007411.htm Hergilei (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:26, 13 August 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. So Why 07:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Max Lubin[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he plays in the Mongolian Premier League. Since this league is not confirmed to be fully professional (see WP:FPL), playing in this league does not satisfy WP:NFOOTBALL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find online sources to indicate that this article would ever satisfy WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:59, 20 August 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. So Why 09:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aturaparijnana[edit]

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

Article very unclear about its subject, does not meet WP:GNG. Confused about this one, but PROD was removed, so here we are. Verifiable sources are lacking. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, and I can't tell what the article is actually about. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I Have added references but I agree article needs improvements. This is a worthy article about an concept from ancient medicine Ayurveda. With the passage of time ,the article will get more improvements by editors who are interested in medical science and ayurveda. Anoptimistix Let's Talk 06:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, those sources are from fringe journals and don't do much other than to establish that their author is writing about the topic. But the topic still isn't really notable, so I don't see what future editors could even do. Also, ayurveda is pseudoscience, not medical science. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 02:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Ayurveda. There is one single source, and a quick search yields a couple of other articles written by the same person who is one of the authors of the existing source, so it is clear that the concept exists but not that it meets GNG. Because Wikipedia cannot make medical claims based on the writings of one single person (and the requirements for sources on medical topics is very strict), much of what is in the article now needs to be removed, but the introduction might, with some editing, be moved to the article about Ayurveda. --bonadea contributions talk 09:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily, a merge might be reasonable, but it doesn't even seem notable enough for inclusion into the main article. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 02:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: I'm reaffirming my delete !vote after the updates to the article by Anoptimistix. Even after the updates, I still can't tell what the article is actually about. But more importantly, the article still doesn't demonstrate the topic's notability as the only two mentions are from extremely unrealiable sources. There isn't even enough information or notability to merge as was also suggested above. This is a fringe idea within a WP:FRINGE topic, but the article doesn't treat it as such. There's simply nothing here to salvage; the article should just be deleted. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. Jdcomix (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This goes beyond "no evidence of notability" to "no evidence this is a thing at all"; the only reference spells it "Aaturaparijnana" and I see nothing on that either. I can't verify if it is defined in Charaka Samhita but that's clearly not sufficient. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 August 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 04:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benito Juárez (Martinez)[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Except for a couple of primary sources, the only other thing I found was a brief mention in a guide book [26]. Insufficient coverage. MB 19:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC) MB 19:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this could be a short but helpful article. I went ahead and added the Smithsonian Institution link, plus two City of Houston sources. I also found this book source which describes a full-length statue of Juárez by Martinez. More research is needed here to confirm this is the same artists. If so, the Wikipedia article needs to be updated accordingly, describing both works in separate cities. I am looking for additional sources as well, though I hesitate to spend too much time expanding the article in the immediate future if deletion is a possibility (catch 22, here). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This source says, "The 16-foot tall statue of Benito Pablo Juárez was a gift to the city by the counsel general of Mexico in February of 1999. The statue was created by Julian Martinez, and is a replacement for the bust gifted by the Mexican President in 1977." Interesting that the statue replaces a bust, perhaps similar to the one in Houston. Again, there is more to this story, and more research is needed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, seems there are 3 works here: the bust in Chicago, which has been replaced by a full-length statue, plus the bust in Houston. These three works can also be described here, and with some additional research and expansion, I believe this could make a nice addition to the encyclopedia. I've quickly added some content, images, and inline citations to help establish notability, but I'm still hesitant to spend too much time saving this article just to avoid deletion. I'm working on a few other articles presently, but I'd love to revisit this at a later date. In the meantime, I'll add the WikiProject Chicago and Illinois banners to the talk page, and keep my fingers crossed editors help identify additional sources and keep this stub. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With only listings and no reliable, secondary source coverage, this topic is better off merged or deleted than standalone. Also those Commons images should be transferred to enwp as fair use before they're deleted—the sculpture has every indication of being under copyright. czar 16:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you've searched newspaper archives to determine there's no secondary coverage? If not, I wouldn't assume it does not exist. Yes, the image of the sculpture should probably be moved from Commons to ENWP as fair use (not sure if there's a tool for this?), but I think the images of the plaque and park should be fine, no? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well written and researched, and well sourced. It should be hard to delete pages on recognized statues and monuments, and this one is obviously notable per itself, its prominent location, and its subject. Nice work. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:11, 17 August 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 Hillary Clinton email controversy. Near unanimous consensus.Any interested editor can perform a selective merge(if needed). (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 04:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting[edit]

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

A single meeting of this sort doesn't merit its own article. I suppose it could be merged to something, but the meeting on its own doesn't meet a relevant notability standard. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 14:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT ~~KEEP~~ ~~OPPOSE~~ - to Hillary Clinton email controversy. Meeting highly notable in multiple RS. ~~involves the DOJ emails that were turned over after FOIA lawsuit, that provide evidence of government collusion with MSM - I'd say that's highly notable.~~ ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC) ^{changed to redirect, underlined relevant text, struck irrelevant text 00:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

Note: Atsme is the creator of this article. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Serious undue weight given to a footnote of the Hillary Clinton email controversy. Condense mightily and redirect, merge, to that article. TheValeyard (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheValeyard, it's not about Hillary Clinton emails. Your redirect is inappropriate. It's about Bill Clinton and Lynch meeting on the tarmac, and the email exchange between the Department of Justice and MSM - WaPo and NYTimes. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^{Note to TheValeyard - see my iVote change and explanation. I removed the passages that are not relevant to the proposed merge. 00:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

Comment I note the existence of Donald Trump's disclosure of classified information to Russia and Trump campaign–Russian meeting. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely strong keep This event has received a massive amount of coverage over the past year from reliable sources, easily more than enough to establish notability: [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] and this is just from a short, cursory search. There is far, far more coverage out there than the handful of articles which I have linked here. CJK09 (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of Donald Trump's handshakes. It's a POV fork created for the benefit of a particular US political viewpoint. Much though I feel for US voters who had to hold their noses and choose between those two ridiculous presidential candidates, we do need to rid our encyclopaedia of these politically-motivated so-called "articles". If it's important then it belongs in Hillary Clinton email controversy and if it isn't then it needs deleting. In neither case is this article justified. Transwiki to Conservapedia if they want it, then delete.—S Marshall T/C 22:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Hillary Clinton email controversy. I edited the article to remove the worst of the POV language, quotes, and structure to see if there was a standalone article there but the article creator undid all that. However, even the version I ended up with is undue weight for such a small part of the email controversy. Although sources do exist, they are far from "massive". The meeting itself was pretty much a nonevent as For Mr. Clinton, who travels frequently by private jet, such airport socializing is common.[39] There is no international coverage of the meeting, (as there was for Trump's handshakes) and there are no mainstream sources discussing the alleged coverup, which indicates that this subject should not be forked. If there actually was some coverup, an international mainstream reliable source would cover it. Transwiki it to Conservapaedia, or not, but this article should not be standalone on WP. Ca2james (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N - The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Perhaps you forgot, the article itself is about collusion between the DOJ and the MSM. Do you expect them to incriminate themselves? It's under investigation, the same way the 20 minute Trump_campaign–Russian_meeting is under investigation, and has far less importance than the DOJ colluding with and writing the talking points they want MSM to report. You might want to read those emails. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, "the 20 minute Trump_campaign–Russian_meeting"? While we know that the meeting occurred in the afternoon, at the same time that Donald Trump was in the building, I don't recall that we know the length of the meeting, whether it was an hour or several hours. Do you have some sources which mention that subject? -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, they've removed alot of essential information from that article as with this one, information that our readers need. Anyway, there's a comment by Trump Jr. in the Purpose section "such a nothing... a wasted 20 minutes".'^{Atsme📞📧} 03:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Okay, a flippant and irritated denial type remark when questioned by Hannity. As a child I made that type of remark when caught redhanded. Childish naiveté thinks that self-deprecation will be taken seriously as meaning "less guilty". Adults know better.

-- BullRangifer (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources discussing alleged collusion are the ACLJ and some right-wing sources. This "story" hasn't been picked up by mainstream media and therefore isn't notable. It isn't enough that the ACLJ (run by Trump's lawyer) claims collusion; reliable sources and other mainstream media has to talk about them doing it. And that's not happening. The emails themselves are irrelevant because what matters is how reliable sources are interpreting them. Ca2james (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, you attest to things such as "the article itself is about collusion between the DOJ and the MSM" and "the DOJ colluding with and writing the talking points they want MSM to report", which seems to indicate a point-of-view (and a fringe one at that) is driving the article, rather than WP:NPOV. TheValeyard (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheValeyard, I think you misunderstood. I was explaining that the article isn't about Clinton emails - the focus was going to be on the 400+ documents released by the DOJ under the FOIA. In those documents are a "flurry" of emails between DOJ OPA staffers and MSM. Bill Clinton boarding Lynch's private plane isn't the focus of this article, and neither is Hillary Clinton. The DOJ is not supposed to be political and they also aren't supposed to be writing/approving/reviewing articles for publication in WaPo or the Times. Investigative reporters are supposed to find out what's going on, not just accept and get approval of their articles from the DOJ before publication. It is clearly a stand alone article (if I can ever back to editing it without disruption) and it certainly does not belong merged with anything related to Hillary Clinton because that is not the focus. Perhaps changing the name of the article would do the trick. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect POV fork of the Clinton email controversy. Clear example of WP:NOTNEWS as well. A minor event that has no lasting notability. Rockypedia (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hillary Clinton email controversy. No need for standalone article, brief campaign hysteria notwithstanding. Neutrality^talk 01:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Hillary Clinton was not involved in the emails. Your redirects are inappropriate. You might to read the article before you request a redirect. It's about Bill Clinton and Lynch on the tarmac, not Hillary. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Er, are you feeling ok? You wrote the article, which is about the conspiracy theories surrounding the Clinton-Lynch meeting, the theory being that Bill exerted undue influence on Lynch to ease up on the Hillary e-mail scandal investigation. Whether we look at your somewhat biased version or the cleaned-up one, the gist of both versions is squarely and completely about Hillary's emails. TheValeyard (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme: Your snark is not only unhelpful, but inapt. The only reason why the meeting between Bill Clinton and the AG was at all noteworthy was because the DOJ was investigating the Clinton email controversy at the time. That and the accompanying hysteria/conspiracizing was the reason for the news coverage that this "tarmac meeting" got. Neutrality^talk 02:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't intended as snark. I created this article 2 days ago, and I was still in the process of expanding it when an editor who I have a not so pleasant history with decided to show up here and AfD it. We usually wait at least 5 days before we do anything to a new article at NPP. But I guess I've ruffled some feathers over at Taylor because they're having a bit of trouble understanding my proposal as it relates to WP:LABEL, and how easy it would be to make it compliant with a simple inline text attribution. So now my work here is under attack as evidenced by this diff.

Just curious...is that why you're here now, Neutrality, or is it just a coincidence? Glad your here! When I responded to you, I thought the original version of the article was still up there which explains what I'm talking about when I say it does not have anything to do with Clinton's emails. All of that essential information was removed, apparently in retaliation of the RfC I called at Taylor per the diff. Here is the version I was working on before the disruptive editors showed up and started reverting large blocks of text for no reason. See the section Emails and documents released by DOJ. There is a lot more information that needs to go into this article - I was actually working on it when the disruption began. Just stating facts, and it's hard to make disruptive events not sound snarky, especially considering the work I've put in it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hillary Clinton email controversy. This is a POV fork, and about 90% of the content is unencyclopedic. Lizzius (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested by many. This should be treated like any other orphan article. If it gets large in the parent article, then it can be spun out. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm somewhat ambivalent about whether or not it merits a standalone article: it seems to have had as much coverage as other US political semi-events that have been kept. However, if it is redirected, it should not go to the Hillary Clinton email page, because it's not about her or her emails. Instead, it could be merged to Loretta Lynch#Controversies. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment- I went ahead and removed passages that don't belong if this article is merged with Clinton emails, and changed my iVote to Merge with Clinton emails. I now see why editors were getting confused about the focus of this article: the title was wrong. Since it was only a day or two old when it was nominated at AfD, and because there was so much disruptive editing and removal of large chunks of text, I was unable to stay focused long enough to maintain proper context and prevent conflating the two events. So here we are. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's starting to look like there is a consensus to merge. If that's the case, perhaps this AfD discussion can be closed early, and editors can move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:49, 15 August 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. Sandstein 07:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

MooMoo.io[edit]

(Find video game sources: "MooMoo.io" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Prod removed with no reason given by article creator. The article fails WP:GNG with no mentions in reliable sources. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 14:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 14:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 14:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its a notable video game with more than 6000 players active daily. The wikipedia has many stub articles, then why delete this, beside, what source. This isn't a history article is it. Its a game and I did give the links so it is a game and not just a lie article made by me. Please do not delete this article. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Hagoromo's SusanooHagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you are arguing is basically original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia, otherwise everyone could just start making articles with the claim "this is notable, I swear!". Your other arguments are it's popular and other stuff exists which are also not legitimate arguments. If the article is as notable as you claim then all you have to do is wait for other editors to back you up, otherwise you're probably doing something wrong and should read general notability guideline. By saying "please do not delete" you are also not assuming good faith that I am somehow out to delete your article in particular and not anything that is non-notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I dont even know how this good faith came. I just want this article to stay here; Im not being rude, just polietely asking that do not delete this article, don't take it personally like I'm saying anything against you; I'm not. This is not bad faith, I just misunderstood what you were trying to say. Trust me, I'm a very polite person. Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_the_assumption_of_good_faith#What_.22Bad_Faith.22_Is_NOT P.S: I did ask help from the admins of MooMoo.io discord, I hope they'll do something. "Please do not delete" is just a request from me that discuss with me about this article rather than delete it immediately(some other artcils of mine were speedily deleted, without giving me a speaking chance). Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming bad faith does not mean being impolite, it means thinking that other editors are trying to sabotage you for unjust reasons. As if asking me not to delete would somehow make the big bad editor stand down. I am not an admin so I wouldn't actually be deleting anything, I am just pointing out the article for being non-notable, which is something that is governed by a very public set of rules that anyone can read indepth._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know, either I was assuming that you are sabotaging me, I probably phased it incorrect, I just meant that discuss with me before deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk • contribs) 15:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did a quick search and found this not particularly great source here. There are some additional sources in Spanish but I'm not familar enough with the language to review them - they might help but based on the website names they don't look promising. Also, the game's number of players does not make the game notable and I suggest the article creator read WP:Other stuff exists. ZettaComposer (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cannot find multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS, to satisfy WP:GNG. Daily Game does not appear reliable. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A game with 6000+ players daily isn't notable, we do have unimportant stubs on wikipedia, don't we? Besides the source you gave me is in English not Spanish. Or then tell me, how many players should it have to be notable? It has a google app, major gaming websites have it, whats more needed? ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk • contribs)

References

^ https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.yendis.moomoo_mobile&hl=en

It should be covered in-depth by multiple reliable independent sources. Read what WP:GNG actually says. Without sources, we would have to write content ourselves, which is directly against Wikipedia's core policy of WP:V. Zxcvbnm already addressed using the notion of being popular or there being other games as unsuitable arguments against deletion. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As established, not notable game. No in-depth coverage by reliable sources. @Hagoromo's Susanoo, might I suggest you take a moment to read WP:N and WP:NGAMES? It would be a waste of your time and energy to spend time arguing this. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary source. A reliable video game source web search returns 0 results. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above comments. Does not appear to meet the WP:GNG. Number of active players usually doesn't factor in to notability. (And even if it did, I'm not sure 6,000 is particularly noteworthy or impressive anyways.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 18 August 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 West Coast Wrestling Connection. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WCWC Legacy Championship[edit]

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

Searches turned up no in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why can't this be merged/redirect to West Coast Wrestling Connection per WP:ATD instead? Regards So Why 07:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It could be SoWhy, but it keeps getting re-created as an article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:30, 21 August 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: Moved to User:Aguyintobooks/List of Listed Buildings in Cornwall (New Pages) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Listed Buildings in Cornwall (New Pages)[edit]

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

See WP:LISTCRUFT. This is a non-encyclopedic list because most of the entries are red-links, that is, pages that do not exist. Lists should be of articles, not of redlinks. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved I have mistakenly created this article in mainspace, I have moved it into my userspace, where it is being used as reference for my sandbox. I intend to create stubs for all the articles on the list, however this list will not be moved back to mainspace, since other lists will cover these pages. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what affect moving the page has on the Afd, I have not removed the template and will leave the cleanup to someone more experienced. Sorry about this. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The subject page was moved by its author from article space to user space. Can an administrator please speedy-close this AFD? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:32, 13 August 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rome International Film Festival (RIFF)[edit]

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

Other than local coverage and simple listings, no in-depth coverage to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 13 August 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Karp[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:Creative Lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Full of unsubstantiated claims about his accomplishments. Mduvekot (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:02, 13 August 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tharun Mohan[edit]

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

Non notable director. Has directed 1 non notable short film and another short film of his is about to release soon. Seems like a portfolio page made by somebody with an obvious WP:COI Jupitus Smart 13:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:12, 13 August 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. Sandstein 07:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kacey Khaliel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Hello. This article has a long history. This is the third AfD, but given that it is about a young artist with a developing career, that is not necessarily shocking. More alarming is that a Draft:Kacey_Khaliel ([40]) was created in August 2016, declined in August, October and December 2016, and then in April 2017 a different user copied/pasted the content in Draft:Zairyus_Anthony_Palani ([41]) before moving the page to Kacey Khaliel.

Looking at the sources in the article, the only one that is centered on the topic is this: [42]. The rest is song credits and passing mentions.

A Google search gave me 14 pages (so 130+) results, but nothing of interest. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 15:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Significant coverage is in sources that are either not independent or not reliable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:04, 20 August 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 Raajakumara. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bombe Heluthaithe[edit]

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

Non-notable song. Fails WP:SINGLE. I'd suggest merging, but there's nothing in this article that you wouldn't assume you'd find at Raajakumara. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Raajakumara then. It's at least a plausible search term. Regards So Why 07:41, 21 August 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. While there is agreement, that this subject is cited often, there is also consensus that sufficient sources about the subject do not exist. If and when this changes, the article might as well be recreated. So Why 12:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New York Journal of Books[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Not notable according to the criteria of WP:WEBCRIT; there are also issues of WP:NPOV due to the lack of WP:IS The article relies heavily upon three sources:

Andriani, Lynn (November 22, 2010). "New Book Review Site Launches". Publishers Weekly. PWxyz, LLC. Retrieved June 10, 2017. That's basically an announcement that the venture and its site have been launched. Ms. Andriani merely describes the goals of the website and the content it is about to provide. The information seems to be taken from interviews or maybe a press release of the New York Journal of Books (NYJB) themselves. This single source is used excessively, for example, to describe the site's goal in the lead section, in the history section and in the section on reception. In the section on reception the very same article is used for three quotes with a footnote each, as if Publishers Weekly wrote three different articles on that website, when in fact it was just one by Lynn Andriani. Casual and trivial as it is, that is even the best source for the article.
Leaf, Lizzie T. (December 2013), "New York Journal of Books Interview – Behind the Scenes", The Booklover Magazine, Night Owl Reviews. When Lizzie T. Leaf, a writer of paranormal and historical romance, published her interview with the NYJB, she had aleady been a reviewer for that site.[43] That interview appeared in the apparently self-published Booklover Magazine, hosted by Night Owl Reviews, a network of web sites focusing on book reviews. Most of the information sourced to that interview comes directly from the NYJB itself.
Yumul, Rich (August 27, 2015), "Case Study: New York Journal of Books grows their website with Drupal", Sagetree. The article skips over the fact that Sagetree is Richard Yumul's company and rebuilt the NYJB website with Drupal. That's what Mr. Yumul described in his "case study". It's an obvious piece of advertisement and as a customer of Sagetree Mr. Sturtz is quick to attest: “I am happy to be a reference for every single client who needs one. . . . For me, Sagetree is the Holy Grail." To use that piece throughout the article, even in the lead and in the section on reception, all the while obfuscating the business connections between Sagetree and the NYJB, is concerning.

The same is true with the quote by Writing Children's Books for Dummies in the lead and in the section on Reception. The author is Lisa Rojany, who is the publisher and editor in chief of the NYJB. That's not "reception", but marketing.

Many more references are to the NYJB website itself, mainly a listing of its more notable reviewers. The other referenced articles mention the NYJB only somewhat casually.

In sum, I think there are two issues to be sorted out first, namely WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:WEBCRIT. It has not been shown that the content of the NYJB itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself, and notability is not inherited from notable reviewers. I did a GA review of this article about a week ago in which I pointed out these problems. Since then no further sources have been added, so I believe there are none. --Assayer (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. --Assayer (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. --Assayer (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. --Assayer (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, hope this doesn't cause problems with citing their reviews in 100s of wikiarticles...Coolabahapple (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether this pub can be used as a source is (or should be) a completely separate topic from whether the pub is independently notable for its own article. The former is off-topic here, but I linked to prior discussions in my response below. czar 20:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, and apologies for wandering offtopic (i am open to a little fish slapping:)).Coolabahapple (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Suggestions on how to improve the article should be made on the article's talk page. AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Sagecandor (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding a comment on behalf of New York Journal of Books. Sorry I know nothing about coding for Wikipedia. A few points:

Author of expanded article appears to have been exhaustive in searching for online material that describes NYJB. There is not much. We focus on our audience and the roughly 1200 publishers' and imprints' reviews that we cover. And so to write a full-length article author was resourceful in using everything he could find. Unfortunately much of this is dated and now inaccurate. And so through no fault of author, there are numerous inaccuracies. One easily checked miss is the dozens of reviewers who are the subject of Wikipedia articles.
100% agree that some of the sources here have appearance of conflict. Third parties are, of course, better.
We believe that we are the most widely quoted online book review. (Quoted online, in print articles, in book promo.) Indeed, that we are mentioned in passing is normal vs. what is suggested in one comment. No journalist stops to provide a profile of the quoted review. But the review is chosen because it has authority.
Publisher's Weekly years ago asked to do an article on us with our cooperation years ago because we seemed to be the first broad, quality online-only book review to show signs of emerging those number of years ago. This solid on our beginnings, but not on current methods.
Unfortunately, otheer sources are also dated and no longer accurate
Google page rank is a solid way to judge the way other online websites, etc. view a site, such as a book review. The page rank is set based on quality and quantity of links to a website. Like Kirkus, that has been around much longer, we have a Google page rank of 6. This can be checked at following URL or any other Goggle page rank checker you can search for and use: https://www.prchecker.info/check_pagerank. The NYJB page rank is based largely on about 150,000 links from external locations on the web that link to NYJB because they believe our content has value. (Sorry, we get this in Google Webmaster Tools and impossible to link to this password-protected info source.
The structure of the article on NYJB departs from the single other online-based review that we and the publishing world considers our equal, Los Angeles Review of Books.
Also departs from structure of article on San Francisco Review of Books. Find it odd that the SFRB article is deemed perfectly fine despite article's flimsy sources. Also while I don't wish to trash another review, it is stunning to me that while SFRB has a zero Google page rank, it warrants an article. Over years it is really hard to remain at zero and indicates that an incredibly small number of authors, publishers, etc. consider a rave review from SFRB credible enough to even bother to link to. Also won't find credentials for their reviewers. They are merely book lovers.
As noted we do not believe that the current article is accurate because it uses old sources. We would be happy with a much briefer article that mentions our beginnings as previous article did and does not get into specifics of how we operate as there are not current sources. Or we'd be happy with the article that preceded this expanded version. As I recall it was truncated, but was not inaccurate.
However, we expect there to be more sources in coming couple of months. A core element to the story of NYJB is that we have been building tech that is unique to NYJB and enables us to streamline operations with most administrative actions, including interaction with publishers and reviewers handled by our tech. Critical final piece is likely to be launched by around end of September. And it is only recently that I am able to talk about more of what we are doing with tech (but not everything) as it's almost complete and we have needed to protect our first-mover advantage.
Upon launch, we plan an announcement to a number of thousands of book publicity professionals, also press releases, and expect this to be reported by the leading publishing industry daily newsletter, Publishers Lunch (with links to article online) and have heard that Publisher's Weekly has heard about the new tech completely unique among book reviews. No doubt further coverage.
The tech enables us to grow over a bit of time so that we ultimately become the largest source of the highest quality, extended reviews of any review source in the English language.

And so, while we do not believe that current article on NYJB should remain in its current form, we do believe that it would be unfortunate to simply eliminate us from Wikipedia, especially as we are about to become even more dominant than we have been as an online review. A short article that can be expanded in coming months seems to me to be a sensible solution. Also, as one editor noted, we are cited across wikipedia - something we know because this generates traffic to our website and a scaled down factual version would avoid disruption and appearance of contradiction as we are considered a valid source for so many other articles.

Thanks for considering all if the above. I hope you all hear that we believe there is value in a full Wikipedia article, but one that is accurate and up to date. And so I hope that the short article can be restored and then updated as more info becomes available online.

Ted Sturtz, Founder, NYJB 8-7-17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.67.81 (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Plot to Hack America, out of a discussion as to whether this publication is itself "reliable" for use on WP (later discussed at RSN). The NYJB article then exploded from a series of mentions into what is effectively no different than a series of mentions. Assayer's analysis is spot on: The sources do not have depth or independence from the publication, and the rest of the sources are either asides or links to author bios, none of which describe NYJB in enough depth for us to paraphrase into an encyclopedia article. If this extraneous information were to be removed from the article, we'd be back at the original stub. The IP editor above (if indeed the NYJB founder) says as much, that there is not much coverage of the pub in reliable, secondary sources (first bullet). (P.S. We could respond on any number of your points raised, but this is the wrong venue for that.) To the point of this AfD discussion, the nominator makes a straightforward case about the sourcing (not "cleanup") of this article, which does not fulfill the general notability guideline (re: depth/independence) and which requires more than a dump of passing mentions of the subject. I recommend staying on topic. czar 20:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can anyone suggest (or create) a plausible merge/redirect target? On the one hand, I agree with nom's analysis of the Sagetree case study and The Booklover Magazine interview. They are not independent, reliable, secondary sources, and should be removed. The Publishers Weekly piece is an acceptable start on sources, but there is no other independent coverage of any depth, so it is difficult to argue that the stand alone article should be kept.

On the other hand, reviews in New York Journal of Books are cited by a fair number of independent journalists and academics, so as a Wikipedia reader, I'd like to find some independent information about the site, even if not a full article's worth. Could it be covered in a paragraph or three of a broader topic? --Worldbruce (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce, I don't see a suitable redirect target, else that would have been my recommendation. The pub has no notable parent topic. For what it's worth, we have plenty of reliable sources that do not link their publication's name. (In this publication's case, there are not many citations on WP, and as linked in the discussion above, I don't think they should have been cited in the first place.) czar 16:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to check whether it is the founder who weighed in simply email info@nyjournalofbooks.com4.Unless that's a violation of your procedures. (Don't want to put my direct email address here.) Believe last comment makes snese. More of sa stub and I would hope for this to be revisited in a couple of months as we expect to have substantially more info in public domain when trade secrets are no longer trade secrets because we've executed. And BTW, for author of article, the following is a partial list of reviewers with articles bout them in Wikipedia. Easily checked by searching our website and finding their reviews. Those marked "pending"are brand new with first reviews not yet in.Others have reviewed or have and continue to review. An barely relevant book review does not include this number of credentialed reviewers among its ranks.

Alice Mattison (pending), Aphrodite Jones, Bhaskar Chakravorti, Carol Moldaw , Charles Weinblatt Chinelo Okparanta Dora Levy Mossanen, E. Ethelbert Miller, Edith Pearlman (pending), Eloisa James, Gian Gentile, Jake Bible, James Denselow, James Thompson (crime writer), John Whittier Treat, Jon Land, Jonah Raskin, Karen Dionne, Michael J. McCann, Mike Edison, Paul LaRosa, Peter Riva, Rae Bryant, Richard Cytowic, Ryan David Jahn, Sam Millar, Siobhan Fallon, Tony Bailie, William Tomicki (Bill Tomicki in Wikipedia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyjbooks (talk • contribs) 13:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you said yourself, the publication hasn't been covered widely in independent, secondary sources. If/when those sources are published, this discussion can be revisited. czar 16:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NYJB Founder again: Makes sense. As noted previously, we have been reluctant to grant interviews or release information because New York Journal of Books technology is proprietary and we have wanted to protect our first-mover advantage in streamlining the administrative aspects of operating a book review. As we are in process of final phase of core administrative tech build, we will be able to release more info about this soon. And this will be publishing industry news because of our profile in the industry. That said, i am not so comfortable with the current expanded article remaining in place as there are factual errors. What we were doing at time of PW article and are doing now is different. Hope it's possible to return to previous shorter article, but with discussion held open. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.67.81 (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Between the apparent factual errors and the dearth of independent sources covering the topic in depth, there seems no point in trying to keep this article at this time. Better to recreate from scratch once the forthcoming sources that could establish notability are published. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 17:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i can easily find literally hundreds of references to this site on independent websites and news outlets, while i admit that only (2) of these refernces say anything of note about the actual business, this seems to meet WP:N. A Guy into Books (talk) 11:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That it has "lots of hits" is an argument to avoid—what matters is that there is enough source substance to write an article with due consideration on the topic without delving into primary and affiliated sources, and as you "admit that only (2) of these refernces say anything of note about the actual business", we have our answer. czar 18:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most citing of any book review is with reference to individual reviews, not an article about the review.

Seems rather than remove a highly cited review, is simple to revise to a couple of paragraphs with the PW article at least talking about facts around founding, executives, founding book reviews mission. Could also note the numerous reviewers who have articles on Wikipedia that are reviewers for this review. It says something that so many notable people review with New York Journal of Books.

Separately, Google has NOT been attaching value for links from Wikipedia to other websites for some years. This is partly because organic validity of links is doubted (in light of open access) and because a certain portion of articles are deleted, so that while Wikipedia's prominence is unquestioned, its reliability score for Google purposes has suffered.

Easiest solution is to remove and then add back later. Best solution is a very brief article like the factual one that previously existed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki4014 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC) — Wiki4014 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I think it is worthwhile to preserve a Difflink to the original statement by Wiki4014. It is true that links from Wikipedia to other websites have become less important for search engine rankings, not at least because Wikipedia employs the nofollow attribute on all external links since 2007. But as a trusted website Wikipedia is still very important for SEO and content marketing. As a minimum the NYJB gains traffic when their reviews are hyperlinked to from Wikipedia articles. Since there are so few independent sources that attest to the quality of the NYJB, I find it concerning that people seem to use and refer to its reviews so often apparently without asking questions about it and its reviewing policies. Because of the lack of independent sources, Wikipedia cannot provide much background information on the NYJB and it should not pretend to be able to do so. I did a backlink check and did not find many news outlets and independent websites, but many publishers and authors who use NYJB reviews of their publications as a reference. Wikipedians are most likely atracted to it, because the NYJB is easily available online. In contrast to the NYJB, a simple google search turns up independent sources dealing with the LA Review of Books, which claims to be "a nonprofit, multimedia literary and cultural arts magazine" and thus seems to follow a different approach than the NYJB. The San Francisco Review of Books was a printed periodical which ceased publication 20 years ago. I assume that the frequent allusions to it are actually to the San Francisco Book Review. While I agree that articles on other book review magazines whose notability for Wikipedia may be questionable do exist, that does not really help the discussion on the NYJB. I do not see much reliable sources that could be used to write an article, all the more since the existing sources are allegedly dated and therefore inaccurate. Notability is demonstrated through independent, reliable sources. It is not inherited from the reviewers writing for the NYJB. --Assayer (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment Really there are two issues emerging here, firstly whether this article is notable (which it is, two references is enough and having notable reviewers gives some inherent notability); and secondly whether the sources justify a b-class article (which they don't, there aren't enough sources to support most the information in this article.) so this article fails WP:V and possibly WP:OR, but not WP:N. A Guy into Books (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that "two references" were indeed "enough", which I don't, I can only come up with one reference (Adriani) being somewhat independent from the subject. Which one is the second? There is no such thing like "inherent" or "inherited notability". See WP:WEB: Web content is not notable merely because a notable person, business, or event was associated with it. If the web content itself did not receive notice, then the web content is not notable. Maybe an article on book reviewing in the age of the internet would make sense, but such an article does not exist.--Assayer (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure why comments seem to indicate that NYJB is advocating for preservation of this article. The article is highly problematic in multiple ways, and if there was not this group decision we'd have gone through the general contacts to ask for this to be rolled back to old brief several sentence, thinly, but correctly sourced article.

What can we do to make this bad article go away and get back old one that is grammatical and that one no one can quibble about? By tomorrow if not sooner.

Separately, within next month a major announcement will be forthcoming to publishing industry and there will be coverage. Might serve for some expansion of original article, but nothing like length of current albatross if properly rendered. Or not. Wikipedia is not part of our strategic plans. We just don't want this absurdly flawed Wiki-junk appearing next to us in search results.

Appreciate all the comments, but hope this problematic word jumble can be quickly addressed. If roll back is not an option, please delete. Have marked article as disputed as we do not want anyone to rely on this article in current form and hoping this hastens resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.67.81 (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- for lack of sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail; no indications of significance either. Appears to be a prolific publisher of reviews, but not an authoritative or otherwise notable source. I briefly edited the article recently (Talk:New_York_Journal_of_Books#Sage), and the article struck me as containing a lot of puffery. I've attempted to look for sources, but the sources are lacking. As far as the other articles that link to this one (presumably due to the subject being used for citations), then the only authoritativeness would be due to the authors of the reviews, not the web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I commented earlier, I agree with nom's analysis of the Sagetree case study and The Booklover Magazine interview. They are not independent, reliable, secondary sources. The Publishers Weekly piece is an acceptable start on sources, but there is no other independent coverage of any depth. I don't see the "two references" A Guy into Books claims, and they haven't responded when asked for elaboration. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:WEB. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this one. http://2paragraphs.com/2013/07/the-new-york-journal-of-books/ and this one. http://www.northeastern.edu/law/news/announcements/2015/abrams-nyjb.html couldnt find anything else. A Guy into Books (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up. I wouldn't call 2paragraphs an independent reliable source. Their "about" page says "If you've got something to say or to promote, try 2paragraphs." And that particular story seems to have originated with Inner Circle Labs, a PR operation you can trust because they don't accept a client unless they would promote the client even if they weren't getting paid, and because they wear pink on Wednesdays. The Northeastern piece is also a press release. I wouldn't touch those sources with a 10-foot pole, but at least that explains why our takes on notability are different. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I closed this as keep, with rewrite. however my edits were reversed and the Afd reopened as I was deemed to be too involved. I have restored my changes to the article but will not be involved in this further. A Guy into Books (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find significant coverage by independent, secondary sources. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:17, 19 August 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. So Why 07:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron McLeish[edit]

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

I declined a CSD A7 on this footballer because of the association with Newcastle United, but was reverted. I am neutral. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG, as well as the fact that the sole citation provided in the article doesn't look reliable at all. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a competitive match between two clubs from fully professional leagues. LTFC 95 (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both relevant criteria Spiderone 20:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:58, 20 August 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) Greenbörg (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Masuma Hasan[edit]

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

No real notability. Fails WP:GNG. Being an ambassador is not enough to be notable. See this essay WP:DIPLOMAT. Greenbörg (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as she appears to have held several notable posts internationally, which qualify for WP:GNG and WP:DIPLOMAT. Mar4d (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has held many senior posts, including the first female at federal secretary rank in Pakistan. Easily notable enough for an article. I'm puzzled as to why the nominator focused on her few years as an ambassador to the exclusion of all her other posts. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she's held several major posts and had several "firsts" in Pakistan. I've added some sources and think there may be a lot in Urdu. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:30, 17 August 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. None of the reasons mentioned are sufficient to establish notability and the sole keep !vote did not provide any substantial reasons. So Why 09:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talat Wizarat[edit]

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

No real notability. Fails WP:NACADEMICS and WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Three books, researcher, founding member, chairperson, PhD, MA, commentator. Seems notable enough to be on Wikipedia. sikander (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

having a PhD and MA is not a criteria for notability. LibStar (talk) 04:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:PROF. not a noted leader in their field. only award mentioned is Fulbright scholar, which is handed out to thousands every year. LibStar (talk) 04:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far WP:Too soon] to pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:19, 14 August 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Gheisar[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 07:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:04, 13 August 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. Sandstein 07:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Grant (American Politician)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. WP:TOOSOON at best. Main edits by 2 WP:SPAs with similar names. Boleyn (talk) 07:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unelected politician. Carrite (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being as yet unelected candidates in future elections — and that's doubly true if the election is a year and a half away, so as of today he hasn't even won the party primary yet. If you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already eligible for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to attain notability from the election itself. Every candidate in every election always generates some campaign coverage, so just being able to show a handful of that does not get him over WP:GNG all by itself — but the only references here that fall outside that bucket are his own self-published résumé on LinkedIn, and a magazine article in which he's not the subject but the bylined author. These are not sources that assist notability at all. Plus this is quite blatantly written like a promotional campaign brochure, not a neutral encyclopedia article. So no prejudice against recreation in November 2018 if he wins the seat, but as of right now nothing written or sourced here gets him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates for the US house are not notable for this alone. Nothing else about him bases notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep combat veteran of two theaters of conflict, former Chief of North Korea Plans, Strategy and Future's Team, co-founding member and former Director of U.S. State Department's Weapons of Mass Destruction Terrorism Office and related policy contributor, current CEO of Northern California World Trade Center, ... Bbbounds (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All impressive, but none of those posts amount to inherent notability. Where is the coverage required (see WP:BLPSOURCES). And bbbounds, are you connected to the subject? And to the creator of the article, Jordanbounds? Both have bounds in the name plus have only edited regarding this article. The article is also written in a promotional way with a PR photo. Boleyn (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I asked my college daughter to help me with my first Wiki post, hence the same name. I once worked in the same company as Grant but different departments, hence my interest in posting. I've added linkable sources to Naval Academy varsity letters, national triathlon ranking, weapons of mass destruction office speeches, etc., hopefully improving on what you contributors are communicating. Thank you. Bbbounds (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And exactly none of those things are notability claims that would exempt a person from having to be the subject of reliable source coverage for those things. But that's not what's being shown: what's being shown for those assertions is primary sources, not reliable ones, while the reliable source coverage is sitting entirely on the non-winning candidacy for office. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article is not deleted, it needs (a) to be moved to ".... (American politician)" (small "p"), and (b) have the numerous "Andrew"s replaced by "Grant" to comply with encyclopedic style. PamD 22:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and followed your instructions PamD. Bbbounds (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet notability for biographies and reads like a campaign ad. As an unelected candidate, fails WP:NPOL. Delete with fire. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:31, 18 August 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. Vanity page for non-notable person Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Radwanski[edit]

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

quite not notable. he is mentioned in Patent database, but nowhere else outside of it Arthistorian1977 (talk) 05:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:06, 13 August 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Koçoğlu[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 05:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 05:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY No indication of wide GNG. Article is well referenced, however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites or brief routine mentions. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:48, 18 August 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Koçoğlu[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 05:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 05:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY No indication of wide GNG. Article is well referenced, however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites or brief routine mentions. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:48, 18 August 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. So Why 07:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serkan Gümüş[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 05:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 05:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NHOCKEY going away, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 07:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY No indication of wide GNG. Article is well referenced, however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites or brief routine mentions. Furthermore, I'm seeing significant elements of the information in the article being garnered from primary sources. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:47, 18 August 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 For Lack of a Better Name. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Friend![edit]

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

Another deadmau5 single that did no chart or receive any major secondary coverage. The "sources" available are music download sites and therefore they are discounted. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 05:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 05:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 05:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to For Lack of a Better Name as a plausible search term. --Michig (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to For Lack of a Better Name. Didn't chart, so it isn't notable on its own. Jdcomix (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to For Lack of a Better Name. Lazz_R 18:39, 14 August 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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia Mental Literacy Movement[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is written like an advertisement, and despite existence of a large amount of sources outside of Wikipedia, there is not enough in-depth coverage to prove notability of this topic. Most of the sources that exist are not independent of the movement. WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:GNG. Ceosad (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete no indepndent sources and the article is promotional in nature. Possible somebody from Malaysia could save the article. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:57, 14 August 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Global Technologies[edit]

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

Not notable. Zigzig20s (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Wikipedia is not a marketing or advocacy platform. I've removed the mass of puffery and promotional content from the article but in my opinion there isn't enough here to merit keeping this article. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:24, 19 August 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.

I'm very disappointed in this decision since I've reached out to Wikipedia itself and editors multiple times. Whom can I further discuss this with, please? Gstoller (talk

The result was delete. To the various people arguing to keep this, please understand that we appreciate the efforts of new editors, but at the same time, we have standards that we have to enforce. Please read WP:GNG to learn more about what we consider appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Language of Business (TV program)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Language of Business TV Show (TV Series)

Articles for deletion/The Language of Business (TV Series)

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

This is a local TV program which does not meet notability requirements. A majority of the references don't specifically mention the program, and those that do are non-independent. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. The article is also the sole work of two single-purpose editors with a possible COI. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why should a local TV program not be notable enough? There are references from overseas and in different publications. Seems like you're being too stringent here, especially since most people are volunteers. I'm a new user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmaBoston (talk • contribs) 11:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC) — EmmaBoston (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I watch this show every week and began watching them when they were a local production. I don't know anyone who runs or produces the show. Why can't a local show be notable enough? I think it's great they've grown large enough to be included on Wikipedia. Why deprive them of that? I remember when they first published you told them they were too promotional. They fixed that and now you're still complaining? Let them do their thing, please. I'm a MA resident and we need more original local content. I will try making changes you've requested now to help them out.

I'm from NH and watch this show all the time. I'm taking summer classes at Babson. NO connection with anything except being a loyal viewer. They do a good job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.48.255.190 (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: From what I can tell, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Language of Business (TV Series) is an earlier AfD for an article about this same program, but under a different article title. The earlier article had sourcing concerns similar to this article (no significant coverage in reliable sources; many of the references in the article don't actually mention the show) — and significant coverage in reliable sources is necessary to meet the general notability guideline, even for television programs. It seems likely that if this article is deleted, it will probably be recreated yet again at this or another title (as it is, this article was created just days after the earlier AfD closed), which might require a dose of salt at some point. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there were two previous deletions at AFD, so I have noted them at the top of this nomination. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Wikipedia user but have stayed out of this debate, to avoid any COI. Would it be possible, please, to set up a private chat or phone call with someone so I can properly clean up this page? I'm a novice Wikipedia user and simply trying to do the right thing, following all Wikipedia standards and general business ethics. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gstoller (talk • contribs) 13:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just corresponded with someone from the Wikipedia support team directly. He has clarified the policies so now I understand them. Please do not delete this page so we can find time to rectify the issues above. We're all trying to do the right thing. Gstoller (talk • contribs) 13:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional. I don't think any improvements Gstoller can make will save this article, and encourage him to not waste his time trying. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - factual. In this messed up world where so many people are trying to b/s their way through life, gstoller contacted Wikipedia to try and do the right thing. How many times do you see people do that? I'll trim down article to make more factual. Also, I called WBIN and this show doesn't even run its own ads. What would they get being promotional? Also, I've found that show has ratings and was featured as part of published audit on social media effectiveness. EmmaBoston (talk) 5:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Needing to trim the article to what is factual isn't really the issue here. Whether or not the subject of this article meets Wikipedia notability requirements for inclusion is the purpose of this discussion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With some due diligence today I have found out that after our Chinese episode aired on 3/2/17 it was independently reviewed by 2 Chinese journalists. I'll try to find a copy of their pieces, even if in Chinese. According to my correspondence with Wikipedia this should suffice. Wikipedia wrote yesterday: "properly independent coverage - e.g. a newspaper reporter deciding to write a reasonably in-depth article about the programme, or a few reviews of it in magazines." Gstoller (talk 16:17, 15 August 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. So Why 09:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Charles Morin[edit]

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

Other than the fact that the article was created by the subject himself, there are problems with the references: those about him becoming chairman of the RSS advisory board were written by another member of that board and do not appear to have been published anywhere other than on the RSS Board website or on that other board member's personal website; the evidence of his daughter's YouTube cosmetics subscribers does not contribute to a notability claim for the subject himself (the article he created on her was speedily deleted); the ESPN Zone article is not about the subject, and only quotes him; the Reuters article does not even mention his name anywhere; there are no viable Google News hits on his name (those that do show up are for other individuals with the same name or are not "news"). I had made this a speedy deletion candidate as promotional, but this tag was removed so am now bringing it to AfD. KDS4444 (talk) 23:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As someone who works on improving the entries for technologists involved in the creation of Internet standards, I believe Morin meets the standard of notability. He chaired the RSS Advisory Board that publishes RSS, created the RSS Auto-Discovery specification, founded a startup that grew to 50,000 users before being sold to NBC and authored a popular Wiley book on Windows application servers. The article needs improvements to its sourcing and tone, and I'm happy to work on that. Peterkiesler (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...Which all sounds good— can you provide some evidence that he has been the subject of reliable independent verifiable non-trivial coverage in multiple published secondary sources? I was not able to find any of these, at least not during my initial search. KDS4444 (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable business executive; notability not established. The article even includes a quote from an NBC press release:

NBC digital media executive George Kliavkoff said the acquisition would enable the company to "make predictive understandings of what they might be interested in and start learning about RSS!" Etc.

An advertorial at this point; no value to the project. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 06:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for major contributions or origination of major technical work--note that this alt standard does not require multiple independent in-depth biographical references. Barely, given that we don't seem to have refs saying more than that "he did it" at best. But also, given his key involvement in multiple things that are each notable (TalkSports is a bluelink), I think there is a case that he merits an article as making major contributions in multiple areas. Although this is not strictly sufficient by WP:BIO standard, it is by WP:MUSICBIO--he's not a musician, but at least one of his contributory areas is possibly niche enough that we aren't strictly in GNG territory anyway, so I'm looking at the broader spirit of meriting an article as a landing-point intersection of other notable topics. DMacks (talk) 04:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is indeed fluff in here that should be removed, but that doesn't mean the topic itself is intrinsically unsuitable. There's enough here to avoid WP:TNT and AFD isn't for cleanup tasks. DMacks (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. as above--the technical work is sufficient for notability . I removed some of the fluff. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 17 August 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. So Why 07:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parking (At Your Own Risk)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. The sources I found ([44] and [45]) talk about Deana Uppal being excited for this film, and are thus insufficient for notability. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 16:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:INDAFD: Parking - At Your Own Risk Rajesh Bhardwaj Yogesh Mishra

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

Delete as having no source even saying it has begin filming and generally lacking coverage. Best to await it at least meeting WP:NFF.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unreferenced article about an unreleased film. Since the article projected a mid 2016 release date, perhaps the project failed. But nothing is verifiable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – In spite of Deana Uppal's excitement, the movie seems to hasn't been released yet. BTW, in one of her interviews this year, she said that: "Yes, a few movies I filmed a while back are releasing this year [2017]. A Hindi movie called Yeh Hai India and another movie called Parking." That interview was published by a seemingly unreliable source. And no other update of the movie seems to be available. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:57, 20 August 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 no consensus. Arguments from both the sides are compelling. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 04:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Spinoff[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine lacking independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is old and needs updating, but The Spinoff is getting bigger and is no longer just about TV like it started. It now does really good news articles and opinion pieces and is up there with Stuff and The New Zealand Herald|NZ Herald]]. [46] on the article has some good information that needs to be added and when I have some time, I'll look for more as well. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 04:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is not old, this Afd was posted the same day the article was created. It also looks to be somewhat promotional, does not seem to pass GNG. Looks like a standard case of deletion to me. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - might be a case of wp:toosoon, but currently can't find enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has been nominated for a number of Canon Media Awards: 2016 (best lifestyle/entertainment site (won), website of the year, best sports site), 2017 (website of the year, best blog site) [47] Furius (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is now are large media organisation in New Zealand. Probably the third largest online readership. Here are a couple of news articles that could help flesh it out the article ShakyIsles (talk) 01:22, 18 August 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) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oakland Expressway Bridge[edit]

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

There seems to be nothing particularly notable about this bridge, and the article makes no case for it. It carries K-4 (Kansas highway) (part of which is called the Oakland Expressway), but there isn't even an article for "Oakland Expressway". As the article says: "Overall, it is a bridge." Pineybranch (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since nominator uses the term notable in its generic sense, there is no argument for deletion here. This seems to be a potential article (it is not an article) without a champion, and a discussion without a cause. There are various deletion and keep arguments to be found, including copyvio, WP:V, and gazetteer issues. I lean to deleting it without prejudice to it being re-created from scratch. The biggest problem is that reliable sources call this the "Oakland Expressway bridge", so this topic might only exist as a typographical error or a neologism. Unscintillating (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a poorly written article. But is it notable? I think that this can be saved with some editing and a little research. We tend to keep bridge articles related to major roadways as it always turns out that there is ample coverage for it in reliable sources (government can't build an outhouse without tens of thousands of reams of paper). It will most likely always be a stub, but that's fine. So please understand that I laugh and shake my head as I type in keep.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As much as I believe this article should be deleted, I have to agree with Paul. A quick search found that the nearest 3 bridges have their own articles (North Kansas Avenue Bridge, Sardou Bridge, and Topeka Boulevard Bridge). This one just needs a little work and its golden. The statement, "Overall, it is a bridge" needs to go, that is for sure. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 21:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a significant bridge. Serving a reference about it is a useful function for Wikipedia, for readers looking it up from many usages in the newspaper about bridge resurfacing projects, about accidents, etc. I am heartily amused by "Overall, it is a bridge" being included in the article, apparently a commentary on Wikipedia's fixation with infrastructure, e.g. bridges, historic sites, roadways, ships, etc. After all, we have a special AFD section devoted to AFDs on transportation-related articles. That's why you're reading this, you are part of the problem! --do ncr am 21:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Overall, it is a bridge" is exactly what I Googled and found eight web sites with this text. I'm not sure that it is worth the time to investigate, but if we keep it, there is a copyvio concern. And with all the agreement here that we should keep it, I don't see a single primary reference to nail down the name. Unscintillating (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- - - "Overall, it is a bridge" was added by an I.P. editor in 2013, and without checking I am 99.9% certain that other usages of that phrase on the internet are derivative, i.e. are copies of Wikipedia. And it is a nonsense statement, and merely five words, for which there cannot be any copyright issue. And it has been removed from the article. Done with that! --do ncr am 19:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've added some bare notability sources, and the name might be in question... is it the "East Topeka Interchange" officially? Locals seem to call it the Oakland Expressway Bridge.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found hits on "Oakland Expressway Bridge", but certainly East Topeka Interchange could be mentioned in the article and set up as a redirect to the article, or anyone very concerned could move/rename the article later, with or without a formal wp:RM process. Again, I voted "Keep" on basis simply that it is clearly a major / significant bridge that is mentioned in sources and i think Wikipedia should cover it, as the I.P. points out we cover all bridges. :) --do ncr am 19:27, 16 August 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) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Gill[edit]

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

Hi. The subject is not notable. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She certainly passes the GNG; the cites to Emirates 24/7 and The Times of India are solid enough and to reliable sources. There's certainly extraneous junk in there (I just cleared out the external links, for instance), but that's a content issue, not a notability one. Ravenswing 07:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - It cites 16 sources, it's more than notable enough. Jdcomix (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a few minor film roles does not make someone notable. Number of sources is not in any way a grounds for speedy keeping an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep judging from Google news, easily passing the WP:GNG gidonb (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:GNG per above sources. Smartyllama (talk) 18:29, 16 August 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. bd2412 T 21:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Akanksha Sharma[edit]

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

Hi. The subject is not notable. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSINGER. She is also different from the India's Next Top Model contestant and the Bigg Boss 10 entrant, despite having the same name. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 21:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:GNG. Around seven years ago, she was the winner of Chhote Ustaad, which was a reality show. But the 19-year-old still hasn't received the type of coverage which is required to meet WP:GNG. BTW, as stated above, there's a lot of news articles of a namesake person who has made some "shocking revelations". - NitinMlk (talk) 18:21, 20 August 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. Sandstein 07:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automobilista[edit]

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

Appears to not meet WP:GNG. Non trivial mentions in Eurogamer Italy and RPS, but everything else appears trivial. Name checked a bunch of times in articles about Formula One copyright infringement but nothing I would call significant. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fails WP:NVG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:03, 19 August 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. Sandstein 07:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dwarf panda[edit]

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

I was looking at the wikipedia entry Dwarf panda, which claims to be about the species Ailuropoda minor Pei, 1962. However, the only source in the article as of now is a press release [48] for Jin et al 2007 [49], and neither Jin et al. 2007 nor the press release mention "Ailuropoda minor"; both only mention Ailuropoda microta, which has its own wikipedia article. The taxonbox in Dwarf panda claims the binomial authority for Ailuropoda minor is Pei, 1962, but I can only find a Pei, 1962 that's the binomial authority for Ailuropoda microta. This paper, [50][51] "Quaternary Mammals From the Liucheng Gigantopithecus Cave and Other Caves of Kwangsi" only names A. microta.

In the talk page for the genus Talk:Ailuropoda, Apokryltaros (under the name "Mr. Fink") writes that he could not find any mention of A. minor, and neither can I.

To me, it seems like Dwarf panda / Ailuropoda minor and Ailuropoda microta should not be separate articles, despite the hat note on each of those pages warning the reader to not mistake one for the other. Umimmak (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At first, I wondered if Ailuropoda minor was a synonym of Ailuropoda microta, but, after much google-sifting, I've come to the conclusion that the Dwarf panda article was born of a misidentification of a list of Chinese Pleistocene mammals, i.e., "Ailuropoda microta, Arctonyx minor, et al. So, yeah, please delete away.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any mention of A. minor, neither online nor in the Berkeley palaeo files (which are pretty darn extensive). The above interpretation of mistaken identity seems reasonable. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:57, 13 August 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 and redirect to SCS Software#Games developed. Sandstein 09:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scania Truck Driving Simulator: The Game[edit]

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

Can't find more than 1 significant mention (at Rock, Paper, Shotgun). The game fails WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fails WP:NVG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete always appears to be mentioned along with ETS. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SCS_Software#Games_developed per WP:ATD-R. Regards So Why 07:34, 21 August 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. bd2412 T 21:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Ariella Ferrera[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO, no awards, no unique contributions, no coverage in mainstream media. Lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Mduvekot (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:N and WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Barely asserts notability. No claim for WP:PORNBIO. Lacks significant coverage by independent reliable sources for WP:GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Falls far short of PORNBIO and even farther short of the GNG. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added more info and partial awards on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poofbreeder (talk • contribs) 10:23, 15 August 2017 UTC (UTC)

In general, the new content is not supported by non-trivial independent reliable sources. Most of it is based on interviews (primary sources) on two sites of questionable reliability. For GNG: No progress. For PORNBIO: 1) Award nominations do not count. 2) 23rd billing in a minor mainstream film falls way short of the "featured in multiple mainstream media" standard. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added new references from a reliable source (AVN.com). The "two sites of questionable reliability" have been used in pages such as Girlfriends Films and India Summer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poofbreeder (talk • contribs) 08:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For GNG: PORNBIO of page in debate is still short despite being longer than pages such as Johnny Castle and Shyla Jennings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poofbreeder (talk • contribs) 08:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AVN is not a RS and this still fails everything. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The AVN citations are reprinted press releases, failing the intellectually independent test for reliable sources. Quantity of content does not establish notability, especially when that content is not based on independent secondary sources. Notability is judged on the availability of non-trivial independent reliable published sources or reliably sourced evidence of special achievement in porn. Neither are in evidence here. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -The official AVN links seem to show 404 error which means it may not be possible to cite the claimed info as per WP:PORNBIO. Also the spanish version of this article has survived for more than 30 months. Given the amount of contribution made by the performer to the adult industry, who unfortunately hasn't been mentioned much in media, I would like to give this article a chance to grow as the performer is still in business. -Casktopic_say 19:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other language Wikipedia editions have their own notability guidelines. The es.Wikipedia article cites IMDb as its reference, clearly not acceptable here. As for AVN, all links are either working or are successfully waybacked. Two are republished press releases. The award nomination citations are trivial coverage confirming that the actress was nominated for awards. Nominations don't count towards PORNBIO notability. Finally, contributions to porn need reliable sources to verify them. They do not seem to be available. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:PORNBIO and significant RS coverage not found. BLPs deserve better than this. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:12, 20 August 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. So Why 07:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Hunt (Video Games)[edit]

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

Could not find his name in relation to anything re: the games posted. Non-notable game developer, fails WP:BIO. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; possible hoax. Power~enwiki (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. TheDeviantPro (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:10, 21 August 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. So Why 07:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eight Album (Muse album)[edit]

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

Classic WP:TOOSOON. Only rumors of an eighth album, not even a title announced yet. The text of this article is copied from the muse wiki, though I don't think that this breaks copyvio as most wikis are under creative commons (I haven't been able to verify this for the Muse wiki though). — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 00:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Way too soon. Jdcomix (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:HAMMER, WP:TOOSOON - take your pick. There is no name for the subject, and this name is a completely invalid choice if it was somehow kept. Sergecross73 msg me 16:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete GNG, Hoax, all of the above. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:27, 21 August 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. Enough sources to clinch GNG. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 04:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Zaidi (politician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Greenbörg (talk) 08:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be covered in numerous reliable sources [52], which is notable enough. You don't necessarily need to be an elected member of parliament to be deemed notable as a politician. Mar4d (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Week delete while the subject has received numerous press coverage, but most of the sources only namechecked him. i don't see him passing WP's notability requirement yet so my week delete vote. --Saqib (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only one brief media reference is not sufficient to support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His coverage is just routine for failed political candidates. All political candidates will get some media coverage, the coverage needs to be above this extremely low level to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unelected candidates for office are not deemed to pass WP:GNG just because some campaign-related coverage exists — campaign-related coverage always exists for all candidates in all elections, so all candidates would always pass GNG if that were all it took. Rather, to get him into Wikipedia you would need to show that either (a) he already had enough preexisting notability to qualify for a Wikipedia article for some other reason besides his candidacy, or (b) the campaign-related coverage expanded significantly beyond the norm for that level of significance. But neither of those things is being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, most of the media coverage on Zaidi does not relate to his role as candidate, but rather his position as political leader. See https://tribune.com.pk/story/815893/party-politics-ptis-new-local-leader-upsets-old-members/ , http://nation.com.pk/national/22-May-2017/mussarat-ahmed-zeb-has-nothing-to-do-with-pti-ali-zaidi , http://fp.brecorder.com/2017/03/20170326158028/ , https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/pakistan/ptis-ali-zaidi-sends-legal-notice-to-journalist-saleem-safi-claiming-rs-300-million-in-damages-over-allegations-of-working-for-iranian-lobby/ , http://www.thefridaytimes.com/tft/cracks-emerge-in-pti-karachi/ , https://tribune.com.pk/story/1005487/ptis-arif-alvi-ali-zaidi-tender-resignations-from-party-positions/, etc. Here you have interviews with Zaidi in mainstream media https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kuf18ETeuSE , see also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd6mpvE_Rq0 , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdMad0vDU1I --Soman (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For review of sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Soman. Coverage exists in reliable sources sufficient to show notability. CJK09 (talk) 00:24, 13 August 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. bd2412 T 21:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Lee Young[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The subject is one of those "up and coming, next big thing" types that the entertainment world is full of. There are plenty of citations here, but they're to IMDB and other sources simply confirming that he exists, as well as all manner of social media sites doing much the same. Based on a Google search, I'm thinking we have a WP:NEXTBIGTHING who isn't yet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, or WP:ENT. gongshow talk 00:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've stubbed the article by removing most of the unsourced/poorly sourced information. I suspect that the content of the IMDB page once verified more information but has been subsequently trimmed. Regardless, IMDB is not reliable. --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After performing Google search on the subject, I found that the subject has a Verified page and badge on Facebook, which means Facebook confirms that it was an authentic page for the subject as a "public figure." Also, from a quick cross check of the other major social media platforms, subject also has a Verified page and badge on Kiwi and Spotify, which means both Kiwi and Spotify confirm this subject is a Public Figure. My point is not the subject's social media, but the verifiability and reliability of Facebook, Spotify, and Kiwi all being major platforms that are independent of the subject. MoviesAndMusic (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)MoviesAndMusic— MoviesAndMusic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That doesn't make any sense. Either his Facebook (to take one example) is run by him/his "people", in which case it's not independent of him, or it's run by someone entirely else in which case it wouldn't make sense to have him as being "verified" on it. Social media isn't usually a reliable source, come to think of it. Even if that contradiction could be cleared up, I don't see how Facebook or Spotify at least would be able to provide the third-party in depth coverage required. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the confusion. I am Not referring to His Facebook page, His Spotify page, or His Kiwi page as independent sources. I am referring to the companies themselves being independent from the subject. Facebook, Spotify, and Kiwi are all major companies with high-end verification processes before issuing a verified badge to the page. These badges require a set of criteria and are only issued to the most notable figures. If all 3 of these companies are confirming he is a public figure in entertainment with a verified badge, then that serves as a reliable case that this person is legitimately notable. The case I was making had nothing to do with "in depth" coverage, so I apologize if I misled you into thinking it was. I have not looked into the "in depth" coverage, but if you already looked deeply into it, then maybe this page will qualify for WP:ENT criteria part 2. Can someone do us a solid and look into whether or not he has a large fan base or significant following? Thanks! MoviesAndMusic (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)MoviesAndMusic[reply]

That misses the point I was making, though. If the pages are independent of the person they're about, then (logically) they can't be "verified" as being the page of the person they're about, can they? So if they are "verified" per Facebook's checking processes, then they are by definition not independent of the subject. Moreover, "having a verified badge" doesn't count for notability in a Wikipedia sense, which always requires in-depth coverage. If you weren't making a point about in-depth coverage, might I suggest that you make one in order to demonstrate notability for the subject? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In reference to the comment about IMDb not being reliable, I did some deeper digging to verify further. The subject is credited through many movie's distributors such as Amazon. Also credited through official production's websites^[1], and other independent sources. I am on the 17th page of Google search about the subject, and there are still independent sources referencing the subject in the movies and shows. In addition to those findings, both the subject and subject's name appears in many of the posters and screen grabs, for both movies and shows^[2]. In addition, he's billed on IMDb as the main actor for many of these are movies and shows on major networks like Investigation Discovery with notable names like Bex Taylor-Klaus, Madison Iseman, and many others^[3]. That meets WP:ENT criteria 1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. WikiDuud (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)WikiDuud — WikiDuud (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

Considering that Amazon is happy to distribute practically anything, I'm not sure that amounts to much. Additionally, the simple fact that his name appears in a mention of a film or what-have-you doesn't mean anything - it's not just an exercise in "find the name on the internet", but rather "find the independent, reliable, in depth coverage". A poster or screen grab isn't any of those. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is not an exercise in "find the name on the internet." However, I do not think the case being made here was about "in depth" coverage either. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think what this user means is that Amazon, IMDb, Movie and TV Posters, Screen grabs of scenes, the actual movie and show websites, various articles, and other sources are all independent to the subject, but they are all saying the same thing and serving as evidence that this subject has a significant, if not main role in these projects that involve other notable celebrities and networks.MoviesAndMusic (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)MoviesAndMusic[reply]

On the contrary. The "case being made" is always about in depth coverage. See the general notability guideline, which is at the root of any discussion about the notability or lack thereof of any subject of any article. To address the types of sources listed: screen grabs of scenes, along with posters for films and shows, simply prove that the person played a role in the given thing, they aren't "coverage" in any sense of the word. Broadly speaking, the same applies for the websites for the films and shows, as they're designed to promote the thing they're about (and, by extension, the people involved). IMDB is user-editable and thus less than reliable, and Amazon is largely happy to distribute anything and sell anything, so again it confirms existence but not coverage. The "various articles" sounds the most promising, but they still need to amount to an in depth level of coverage, which the ones presently in the article do not. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much found for him other than social media sites and a few passing references. Fails WP:ENT and WP:BIO. It's a concern that several SPAs have shown up on this SPI or on the article (including one who identifies as the actor's publicity agent). Meters (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a directory listing on an unremarkable subject. Insufficient independent sourcing & does not meet WP:ENT. The "Keep" votes are from SPAs apparently affiliated with the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The standard for inclusion is at WP:N, and it involves substantial coverage in multiple independent sources. Per the comments above, I don't see this yet. Things like Facebook groups and verified accounts don't cut the mustard. That doesn't mean that the subject of the article is not a talented individual, but they haven't yet received the sort of attention that would enable us to write a neutral and complete biography of them. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete not yet notable. Can be recreated if and when he'd be WP:N. gidonb (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant references. The arguments for keep are confusing "independent sources" and "reliable" for significance. Being listed or mentioned in a reliable source only verifies existence, not notability. . ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The standards for Facebook and IMDb for notability are much more lax than at Wikipedia. My domestic partner has an IMDb page because he financed a film at Cannes, and a former co-worker has one because he used to be a politician who got films made in his home county. There are literally no reliable sources for this person. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, I have an IMDB page for being part of the production crew of 3 videos. I'm about as far from notable as you can get. That is how unimportant IMDB is for proving notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 01:10, 17 August 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.