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. ansh666 07:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aldersley High School[edit]

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

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

Per WP:GNG, topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it is presumed not to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Thinker78 (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless significant coverage can be found; my own search yielded only passing mentions. One would expect that, since this is a modern school in Britain, significant coverage would be available on-line if it exists at all. If the article is kept, it must be pruned to include only verifiable information. Pburka (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sign of any coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom, lacks significant coverage beyond the primary source.--SamHolt6 (talk) 07:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• US high schools are considered implicitly notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That claim directly contradicts WP:ORG, and this isn't a US school. Pburka (talk) 13:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• But see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The point is that high schools (which actually exist) can't avoid passing GNG, because there are so many official registries, Ofsted reviews etc. that each and every school which exists will implicitly have a footprint which passes GNG. They may not be notable, but they will be WP:NOTABLE. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES notes the outcome of an RfC, though, including the conclusion that secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. Note also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A.G.R.M Higher Secondary School, where consensus was to merge the article because while the school was demonstrated to exist, sufficient sources for an article could not be found during the AfD. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Official records are primary sources and don't contribute to notability. If we start considering government and regulator records as evidence of notability then every business and every civil servant would be notable. Pburka (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources is not difficult to find, e.g. Birmingham Mail, Express & Star, Express & Star again, Ofsted. Qwfp (talk) 08:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (I edited your comment because I think that you intended to link to the news articles themselves and not the Wikipedia articles of the sources. If that's not the case simply change it back). Thinker78 (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Qwfp linked to both the Wikipedia articles and the sources, Thinker78, which is what I imagine they intended to do. In general, it is not a good idea to edit others' comments unless they are seriously broken and causing technical problems. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:GNG, " 'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention", "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability". One of the articles should then not be taken into account. Regarding Ofsted, context matters, so while it may be a reliable source to check facts, I don't think it is a reliable source to establish notability in this case, otherwise every single mention in government public records would establish notability, so if my house is listed publicly in some government record, it would be notable, and I think that simply is not the case. Basically, as I see it you really presented two instances of arguably significant coverage in a reliable source. Per WP:GNG, "There is no fixed number of sources required..., but multiple sources are generally expected." Please provide more evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Thinker78 (talk) 06:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The Birmingham Mail "article" appears to be autogenerated by scraping government records. There's no editorial content at all. I hardly think it constitutes significant coverage. Pburka (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd be surprised if any government records include an 11-page report about your house, Thinker78. I'd consider that to be significant coverage in an independent reliable source, while a mere listing would not be. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS does not mention notability but says "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." Ofsted is clearly a reliable and appropriate source for statements of fact about a school. --Qwfp (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder how many court records meet the 11 page threshold, and if you think every published court case accessible to the public that meets said threshold should then be considered notable for Wikipedia standards. Thinker78 (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course I don't. Most court cases, even those covered in newspapers, should not have articles per WP:NOTNEWS. I would consider a court report to be reliable source for a case of enough enduring interest for its own article, such as Murder of James Bulger. Unlike the vast majority of court cases, high schools are of enduring interest. Qwfp (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as WP:V is a basic policy and thus supersedes WP:GNG (guideline); independent sourcing of any kind is what satisfies WP:V, regardless of whatever objections about it. SwisterTwister talk 04:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:DP states, "Reasons for deletion include.... Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline." WP:DP then incorporates as policy WP:GNG, and because it is also basic policy, it can supersede WP:V if this latter has a less stringent criteria in the WP:DP jurisdiction. Thinker78 (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't understand your reasoning here, SwisterTwister, unless you are arguing that everything that can be verified can be the subject of an article (I presume not)? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per long standing practice on secondary schools. Various offline sources definitely exist including government reports showing notability. And (not that this really is a policy reason, but seems to me to be fairly important anyway), this school is at least as significant as the hundreds of other British secondary schools which are not currently subject to a AfD. This long string of school AfDs is getting very repetitive. JMWt (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • But do you have arguments based on policy, content or sourcing? Or is it again the classic circular reasoning so popular on wp:schooloutcomes but dismissed by RFC? The Banner talk 10:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless official community-wide consensus changed the status quo 'incessant' nominating high schools for deletion is at least waste of time at worst disruption. As I said in many AfDs I don't generally consider them notable worthy of being encyclopedic material, but the consensus of the community do. I hope this will be soon close as speedy keep. There are plethora of articles of non notable people, product and spam of companies and musicians that is where we should direct our nominating power to rid Wikipedia of them not educational institutions –Ammarpad (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • But do you have arguments based on policy, content or sourcing? Or is it again the classic circular reasoning so popular on wp:schooloutcomes but dismissed by RFC? The Banner talk 10:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know what I think, I know what you think. We're both aware that there is a major difference of opinion on this topic. Let's not fight it out on every AfD.JMWt (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you state the same things over and over again, you can expect that I try to rebuke them over and over again. You know that it is only a so-called consensus, flimsy at best. The Banner talk 18:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Please share the link to the official community-wide consensus. I direct my power in simply looking at the recent changes log and work through the list, and that's how this school came to my attention. Thinker78 (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Community consensus is based on outcomes of AfDs though, Ammarpad, so if bringing articles to AfD is treated as disruptive, then consensus can't change. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Cordless Larry: the reason I said that is, please get time and analyze concluded AfDs for at least 30 days, and skips some days at random. (This is to give some randomness, though not based on any formal statistics method). You'll find amazing pattern. I did it, though it is informal and now don't have the time to put the statistics on my user space. You'll surely find amazing pattern. but here is some gist: 1- 95% of high school resulted in keep (some speedy). 2. Nominators who nominated schools show reluctance to do it again after failed nom. 3. Though majority of the schools at AfD are (stubs, real stubs), people keep voting keep!. 4-In "theory" Schools are organizations and must fulfill WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG while in "reality" at AfD, all that school needs is to exists, having web presence (primary source) is another keep, keep. So that's why I said incessant nomination (not first time) can be disruptuve –Ammarpad (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Your statement that "nominating high schools for deletion is at least waste of time at worst disruption" seemed to apply to all nominations, Ammarpad. In any case, what tool did you use to do this analysis? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cordless Larry: I think that @Ammarpad:may be right about the community's standard practice being to keep high school articles. I went to check closed AfD's and I found that in a random sample of ten high school articles, the finding in eight was to keep and in the other two it was no consensus. So I think that next time I see a high school article I will steer clear from submitting it for AfD. Thinker78 (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cordless Larry:. Thank you, I now modified nominating with 'incessant'. I don't mean All, but certainly I mean many, "many" in every sense. Then you second question, I already said it is just basic Arithmetic, that's going through AfDs and sifting the High schools ones and kept watching them till they close. On majority of them I neither voted nor commented just interested in the outcome. And I am sure this AfD will only substantiate my findings. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Articles are deleted or kept following consensus or lack thereof, not by voting. WP:CONSENSUS state, "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia... Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity... nor is it the result of a vote." Thinker78 (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep standard practice. Blythwood (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • But do you have arguments based on policy, content or sourcing? Or is it again the classic circular reasoning so popular on wp:schooloutcomes but dismissed by RFC? The Banner talk 10:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Secondary schools of confirmed existence have long been regarded as inherently notable at AfD, much in the same way that rivers, mountains, villages, and professional athletes are regarded as inherently notable. I support this longstanding consensus. Carrite (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • But do you have arguments based on policy, content or sourcing? Or is it again the classic circular reasoning so popular on wp:schooloutcomes but dismissed by RFC? The Banner talk 10:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Most of us know that these subjects have sourcing, tons of sourcing. It's not always online, but it's there. We (collective of wikipedia editors) could spend hundreds of hours trying to prove this point, and might or might not "win" this particular discussion, but the information is there and it will probably be found, then the article will be written again. In the process, valuable effort is wasted. If we're going to build the encyclopedia, we don't need to spend all our time fighting amongst ourselves on something where the outcome is really already known. That's why Outcomes was written, and although it may have been abused it certainly served us well. We can either respect our traditions or we can devolve into an anarchy of AfD wars. This school certainly exists, and we should keep the article and give it time to improve.Jacona (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you not try to improve it now? The Banner talk 10:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • • User:The Banner,I can't be responsible for fixing every problem, right now. That doesn't mean that everything, created by anyone, that I don't fix this second should be destroyed. Perhaps if you would spend a small percentage of the time you've spent responding to every comment here to improving the article, it would have good article status by now. :) Jacona (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • But do you have arguments based on policy, content or sourcing? Or is it again the classic circular reasoning so popular on wp:schooloutcomes but dismissed by RFC? The Banner talk 10:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - per precedent pointed out by Ammarpad and others. Also suggest specific direction be provided regarding schools so as to settle the issue. Last attempt appears to be 2007-09 here. Unless specialized criteria is created, I suggest senior high schools meet WP:ORG. Operator873^CONNECT 23:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 133#RfC on secondary school notability, I doubt that the community will be able to reach consensus on a notability guideline for schools, Operator873 (beyond the conclusion that secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist). Cordless Larry (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Jacona makes a good point as do the others who rightfully call these nominations a waste of time given that schools are very notable places of interest to communities and just because the sources are not there now, does not mean they can't be found , see also WP:HEY. Also schools are places of local interest see WP:local. These nominations seem to be in bad faith. Why would anyone working on a encyclopedia of human knowledge gain pleasure (if the article for deletion passes) at seeing verifiable knowledge of local institutions be sent down the deletion hole? I honestly don't understand it.Egaoblai (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Having these articles also wastes our time, Egaoblai, because, as Jimbo Wales argues here, they are often an "implicit invitation to boosterism and vandalism". Cordless Larry (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cordless Larry: Your argument is very weak because schools article are not the most vandalized articles! See this historical page and this... WP:JIMBOSAID –Ammarpad (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not saying that they are the most vandalised articles. Some of the most vandalised articles are on very prominent, important topics, and should obviously be kept, whereas I would argue that time spent keeping school articles free of vandalism is wasted, as those articles are generally of little encyclopedic value. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I really agree to with one part of your comment here, that is High schools have very little encyclopedic value and this is not the first place I am saying this: Don't forget; we met here and I made it clear my personal view is that HS must meet WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH strictly, but Community consensus is strongly against that, only now I understand we met there. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't say that community consensus is strongly against that view, Ammarpad. Rather, the community is divided on the issue. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sheffield Private School for a different outcome, for instance. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah @Cordless Larry: I agree with this. Surely. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- meets WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as discussed above.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources, both from newspapers and the government, which cover the school in-depth. Sure, the recent RFC means we can't just assert an article should be kept without sources, but they exist in this case. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:37, 1 December 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) J947 ^{(c · m)} 23:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coravin[edit]

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

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

Meets criteria for unambiguous promotion.

• Keep Strong GNG passage, especially regarding the device the company sells. Some work might be needed to fix the promotional tone, but this article can be saved. South Nashua (talk) 15:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keep I have cut back a large amount of promotional content from the article, but it still has flaws. I lean towards keep on this one, but if better arguments can be made for deletion, I may change my mind.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the current version of the article doesn't seem overly promotional, and there is adequate RS coverage to establish notability.PohranicniStraze (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There is more work to be done to make it a decent article, but there is enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Operator873^CONNECT 23:06, 29 November 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eknath Pawar[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of a person "notable" primarily as president of a political party's local chapter in one city. This is not a claim of notability that gets a person over WP:NPOL in and of itself -- a person has to hold office in a legislature to be considered notable as a politician. But this isn't referenced even close to well enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu -- it's referenced entirely to primary sources, unsubstantive blurbs and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, not to anything like sufficient coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete one-city leaders of political parties are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - local political figure that doesn't clear WP:NPOL.PohranicniStraze (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ran unsuccessfully in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly election, 2014. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. FITINDIA 06:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it fails WP:NPOL. Störm (talk) 09:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:12, 29 November 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 Turkish constitutional referendum, 2017#Opinion polls. Sandstein 21:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for the Turkish constitutional referendum, 2017[edit]

Opinion polling for the Turkish constitutional referendum, 2017 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a duplicate, less complete and less up to date version of the section of the parent article. See Turkish constitutional referendum, 2017#Opinion polls  —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to main article. It looks like a cut & paste of the main article which was created months earlier. Mark^Dask 00:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the main article. Almost all of the information is duplicated, and is presented in a more clear manner on the main page. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 08:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Duplicates the section of the main article so redirect seems the sensible option here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:01, 25 November 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. Sandstein 21:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Field Medic[edit]

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

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

Per WP:NBAND. Comatmebro (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per WP:GNG due to the recent (as of typing this) sources added. Seems clearly notable to me. Andise1 (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Just about enough coverage to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 08:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Plentiful sources. Recently gained major independent news coverage. Meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Keep as musician stub. Operator873^CONNECT 23:09, 29 November 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paulina Gerzon[edit]

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

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

Article was DeProdded due to "Notable roles in All My Children and The Sopranos," but how is being in only 31 of the 10,000+ episodes of the former and 5 of the 86 episodes of the latter constitutes as "notable" or "significant?" When WP:NACTOR says "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, etc.," doesn't that mean a lead or main role in a show for at least one or two whole seasons, which this subject lacks (as her other roles were brief cameos or single episode guest appearances)? She also lacks a fan base (no active social media accounts), significant coverage in entertainment sources (heck, the article's only source does not even mention her), or notable award wins or nominations, so I do not see her meeting WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 23:46, 15 November 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 November 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete being mainly based on IMDb, this articles shows a general lack of reliable sources. Beyond this, I do not see either of the roles mentioned as "significant" at the level needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete mostly a tv actress. In the future she may pass WP:NACTOR. Classic case of WP:TOOSOON. gidonb (talk) 23:39, 25 November 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 21:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mime Radio[edit]

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

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

Poorly sourced article about a recording studio and record label, without adequate reliable source coverage about it to clear WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH: three of the four references here are glancing namechecks of the owner's existence in primary sources, i.e. the self-published websites of things he's been directly affiliated with, while the fourth is a glancing namecheck of the company's existence, in an article that's about a musician who once recorded there, rather than being about the company. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to make an independent record label notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All the references I can find are passing mentions in the context of Serena Ryder's early career, with the claim to notability being the release of her first album Falling Out, itself tagged for questionable notability. As in the nomination, it does not seem to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:23, 29 November 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 21:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All You Need Music[edit]

All You Need Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a company, with no claim of more than local notability and not enough strong reliable source coverage -- this is sourced 50 per cent to primary sources (its own self-published website, the self-published websites of people or organizations that have had some form of direct affiliation with it, etc.) and 50 per cent to purely local media coverage in its own area. To qualify for a Wikipedia article, however, a company has to pass WP:CORPDEPTH requirements, by having wider coverage beyond just its own local area — but this doesn't have that. And for added bonus there's a conflict of interest here, as the creator's username corresponds directly to the name of the PR person for one of the affiliated organizations named in the article body. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This is an obvious violation, its not notable at all. It seems that the owner wants to use wikipedia for free publicity.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - pure promo of a non-notable local retailer. Lacks sufficient RS mentions to meet notability under WP:NCORP. PohranicniStraze (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:39, 29 November 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 defaulting to keep. Split between passing WP:GNG and failing WP:CRYSTAL, both of which are valid points. Concerns about promotional language can be ironed out through editing; the discussion about number of proposed rooms is neither here nor there. ansh666 07:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Live! Hotel and Casino Philadelphia[edit]

Live! Hotel and Casino Philadelphia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:N and WP:TOOSOON. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources regarding the construction and/or planning of the building, so I don't see why it would need it's own page just yet. Comatmebro (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Cordish Companies until we have plenty of construction progress; at this point it's still in planning and still too many unknowns exist. Nate • (chatter) 20:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this casino is not planned to open until 2020, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Vorbee (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is a done deal, the casino will be built. The state has already granted the license and the lawsuit that was blocking it has been dropped. Construction will begin next year. As for secondary sources, there are plenty, see Google News link (you have to type it in without the quotes because sometimes it is referred to as casino and hotel instead of hotel and casino)--Rusf10 (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we should wait until construction actually starts for an article. Companies have been known to go bankrupt before completing projects.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources to satisfy GNG are easily found, as the casino proposal has been a subject of prolific news coverage for over 3 years. Seems like a failure of WP:BEFORE. Some sources found in a cursory search: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Toohool (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That is coverage and a blog about the proposal.  The topic we are discussing is a 2020 casino that might end up opening in 2023 or never.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to 10 substantial stories from a variety of reliable sources about the proposed casino. The proposal for the casino is not a distinct, separate topic from the casino. You seem to be arguing that any planned or proposed project is inherently non-notable, and that any articles about such topics are inherently promotional. That is not policy, and there's no promotional content in the article. Toohool (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That which is distinct is the past and the future.  I've replied further below.

With the new material you've added, you use the name "Cordish/Greenwood proposal".  Unscintillating (talk) 06:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt  Even if there is material for a history article that could avoid failing WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, the article we are discussing is a coatrack for promotion.  I was unable to identify any suitable targets for a salted redirect at this time.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also support a Merge to Cordish/Greenwood proposal and salt the remaining redirect  There is a new history section that can be moved to create a relevant article.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be kidding, I challenge you to find just one sentence in that article that is promotional. Simply stating the a project is planned is NOT a promotion. And I probably could find a hundred articles on here about projects that have not been finished yet, so that is a solid argument either. Given that Pennsylvania only can issue a limited number of licenses for casinos and this was one of them its notable. And since the project has now cleared all legal hurtles, it is more likely than not to be finished.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article reports in the infobox that the casino has "200+" hotel rooms...that is erroneous.  The article's statement that the casino "will have over 200 hotel rooms" cannot be verifiable in 2017, so is puffery using Wikipedia's voice.  No sources report the day that the casino opened, because the casino doesn't exist.  Writing an article about a non-existent casino and its non-existent hotel rooms reifies the casino.  I looked at the definition of "promotion" and believe that my assertion that this article is promotion is well founded.  Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we can wait until 2020 or 2021 to report about 2020.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Washington Post [11], there will actually be 240 hotel rooms, so 200+ is actually being conservative. Using your same ridiculous definition of promotion, why do you go ahead and nominate every page it this category for deletion: Category:Proposed buildings and structures in the United States --Rusf10 (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The category is WP:OSE.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• My definition of promotion is published by Merriam Webster, and I believe that my viewpoint that this article is promotion is well founded.  If all you can find to say about that is a pejorative, that suggests that you can't refute the logic, but you don't want to agree.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The correct number of rooms in the casino's hotel is the empty set.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The blog by a staff writer of the Washington Post says (emphasis added) that "The project...includes a 240-room hotel".  Unscintillating (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Live! Hotel and Casino Philadelphia now states that it has "240" rooms.  This is a WP:SYNTH of the world of 2020, and the world of 2020 cannot possibly be reliably sourced.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:Deletion policy at WP:DEL6 states, "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including...original theories and conclusions".  Unscintillating (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments for deletion just keep getting more absurd. Original research?????? Everything is cited. You seem to be fixated on the number of hotel rooms. The plan is 240 according to multiple sources: Philadelphia Business JournalWPVI (ABC)New York Times And the doesn't exist yet argument is really getting old. And when I look up definitions, I prefer to use Dictionary.com--Rusf10 (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep seems to have enough sources to meet WP:N. WP:TOOSOON isn't really on point, but WP:CRYSTAL is. Both accept meeting WP:N as enough to overcome the issues. Weak because the sources aren't great and I'd like to see better for something like this. None of our policies seem to require that the thing in question be certain to happen--they just ask for sources. I can't see the article, so no clue on being overly promotional. Hobit (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  A source dated 15 November 2017 from Poker news Daily states, "It looks like a thirteenth license will be added, as well, as the bill opened the door for the Live! Hotel and Casino Philadelphia to begin construction."  Emphasis on the "it looks like", as this means that construction has not begun, and construction was on hold at the end of October 2017.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point at some policy or guideline that indicates that matters? Even if it never gets built, I think it would be over the WP:N bar and so might make sense to keep (though under a different name perhaps). But maybe I'm missing something obvious. Hobit (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability?  What did I say about notability?
      I assume that I could write a proper and neutral article about this plan.  But the title of the article would identify that it is a plan (or project or proposal).  It would all be in past tense.  It would not have an infobox.  Readers would like it because it would tell them something they can verify and rely on, not a science fiction story about 2020.  An article about the plan will be timeless, rather than being subject to being rewritten in 2020.
      The point of the recent news story from which I quoted, is to show just how far away from reality the reified view of 2020 is.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be arguing for a rename and some changes to the article content, rather than a deletion (though I can't understand exactly what content changes you would like to see). Your arguments about the name are simply not consistent with how other articles about proposed or canceled buildings are titled. See Category:Proposed buildings and structures and Category:Unbuilt buildings and structures. They are almost universally titled simply by the proposed building's name, not as a "plan" or "proposal". Toohool (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sentences written three years in the future in future tense are guaranteed to not be timeless.  You concede that sources from 2020 are not available, and that WP:DEL6 applies to articles that "cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources.".  Nor do you deny that reifying a commercial property that doesn't exist is promotional puffery.  And your defense is that we would have to add the word "plan" or "proposal" or "project" to the title of the article?

As for having separate articles for the planning and post-opening phases, see the Lewis and Clark Bridge (Ohio River), which opened in December 2016, and the Ohio River Bridges Project, which dates back to before 2004.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is not based in reality. Can you point to a single sentence in the article that is "written three years in the future in future tense"? Can you point to a single thing in the article that is not "attributed to reliable sources"? Can you point to anything in the article that is "promotional puffery"? Toohool (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those might be difficult questions for him, so I'll answer. The answer to all three questions is no.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article already makes clear that the building doesn't exist yet (at least to anyone with half a brain). There's no need to put it in the article title. There are already plenty of reliable sources for the project. But if it would make you feel better, I'll fire up my flux capacitor to 2020 and report back to you with new sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  With this edit, Rusf10 has removed the report that the current number of rooms in the hotel is 240.  The future tense is also gone.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:00, 1 December 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 Lillian Axe. – Joe (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lillian Axe (album)[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. The article does not indicate why the album is notable. The one reference does not help. A Google search is hampered by the name of the album being the same as the band, but I couldn't find any indication that this is considered a notable album, indeed the article on the band indicates that the album was not a commercial success. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or redirect - Keep or redirect with history to Lillian Axe. This was already discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lillian Axe (Lillian Axe Album). --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Lillian Axe. Lack of sources. PhilKnight (talk) 00:18, 1 December 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. Sandstein 21:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Morsch[edit]

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

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

BLP with no independent references Rathfelder (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article already has a primary sources tag. There are some other sources discussing the subject: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. --Michig (talk) 07:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources identified above including news and book sources, passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 14:36, 17 November 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. – Joe (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia E. McCarthy[edit]

Claudia E. McCarthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Local high school field hockey coach; coverage is limited to local southern-NJ newspapers throughout her career. No achievements or milestones evident that would meet WP:GNG, and fails WP:NSPORT Rockypedia (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rockypedia (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete short of having a commerically produced film about them, very few high school anything coaches are notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Credible claim of notability in terms of her accomplishments, with the sources to back up the claim. Not use that I'm familiar with the requirement of "having a commerically [sic] produced film about them" as a standard for notability. Alansohn (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should, however, be familiar with the fact that local sources alone aren't enough to establish notability, per WP:NSPORT. Rockypedia (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• keep There is no requirement on Wikipedia that local sources cannot be used to establish notability. Wikipedia does not delete articles simply because they are of local interest, and local news is presumed to be reliable and independent unless otherwise stated.Egaoblai (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice that you noted there is not a requirement that local sources can't be used, but what's the argument for notability? When there are only local sources, that's a problem. Also, as others have pointed out, the subject was only mentioned for 1 event (500th win) and has no other mentions in reliable sources. Rockypedia (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, basically per nom. Not enough here to pass WP:NSPORT. Nsk92 (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I believe the most important fact is that there's no indication that WP:GNG is met. All of the coverage concerns one event, her 500th win as coach, and appears to fall under WP:BLP1E. That fact alone doesn't meet any notability criteria. As far as local coverage goes, the section for high school athletes (no mention of coaches) at WP:NSPORT says "excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications...especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability." As far as coaching success and awards go, I don't see anything encyclopedic. She is one of 1717 coaches in the New Jersey high school coaches hall of fame [17] and never won even a New Jersey regional championship, much less a state title[18]. I'm just don't see her meeting any WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Whereas I understand this is a coach and not a young athlete, I find WP:NHSPHSATH still applies. There is no substantial and prolonged coverage of her. Operator873^CONNECT 23:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - local coverage only. PhilKnight (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naima Mora[edit]

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

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

Non-notable person.Dubiously sourced. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 18:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 18:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 18:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @Sportsfan 1234: you’ve nominated a number of articles about America’s Next Top Model contestants recently - I’d advise you to in future bundle related topics into one AfD discussion instead of nominating individual articles separately (see WP:MULTIAFD for instructions). Also, I’d advise you to give a more specific reason than “non-notable person”, per WP:JNN. Thank you. Linguist^unEins^uno 18:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Was WP:BEFORE observed in this case? The subject is prominently discussed in this New York Times article, which mentions Mora having written her book and done a TED talk. Also listed as one of the "most fascinating contestants" in this New York Post article. bd2412 T 19:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Absolutely no notability problem. Sportsfan 1234, if you feel that the referencing in the article is insufficient you can add references as you wish. AfDs need to be based in research and previous procedures that failed. Not following WP:BEFORE means that likely you'll be wasting the time of your colleagues. gidonb (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the coverage presented by bd2412 indicating in-depth coverage even beyond this person's modeling career. --Oakshade (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – winner of a major reality show who went on to work prominently in the field. I would add, however, that the article needs serious work to be up to encyclopedic standard. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Commenting strictly on the notability of the article, especially when the reference provided by bd2412 is added to the article, it will pass WP:GNG. However, I agree with Tenebrae the article needs work to be encyclopedic and could be expanded. Operator873^CONNECT 23:25, 29 November 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. (WP:SNOW close). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Young Mahasi[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NARTIST. Significant coverage not found. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 18:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Favonian (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Favonian (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO, obvious WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, sources are all self-published. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:MUSICBIO. SamHolt6 (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Reiterating what has already been said above, the bio fails WP:MUSICBIO as well as WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Insufficient coverage. Fails to meet WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 07:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC. Blatant WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. No reliable sources since most are self published. Lacypaperclip (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all the good reasons above and thx to proposer for tidying up the mess created by autobiographer after my speedy. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 13:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have been watching the changes made to this article by the article creator. Despite more content being added, it is my view that these changes only add more press-release style information. Additional, the adding of links to notable people with Wikipedia articles is superfluous as notability is not inherited. I'm sticking with delete.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for numerous reasons. Failing WP:GNG for lack of independent significant coverage. Failing WP:MUSICBIO completely; even the article admit he is wannabe musician not signed to any major label. External links in reference to download Mp3 file directly is covert pamming. The SPA creator is either fawning fan or narcissistic autobiographer; 2 years after account creation he never edited any page (his viewable edits) except this one and their G11 deleted user page. This is professional subtle promotion so as to game G11. With these and many more reasons above this page should be deleted. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:11, 30 November 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. Consensus, regardless of humor, is to keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Museum of Bathroom Tissue[edit]

Madison Museum of Bathroom Tissue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article has been tagged for ten years for insufficient references. Please decide whether a museum devoted to toilet paper is notable, in which case the refimprove tag goes away, or whether to delete altogether. I am ambivalent, except to say that the article should not stay in this state for another ten years. Rhadow (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Flush this article. I did some searching and was able to find a few mentions in books and sites like The Daily Dot, but it's all just passing mentions and/or directory entries. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 18:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 18:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. There are some sources (although not particularly spectacular ones) cited in the article, and GoogleBooks searching shows that there is some additional coverage available. In particular, a GoogleBooks search returns a hit to this book(unfortunately no preview is available), as well as to something from Time [19], to this book [20], and a few other things. Not a lot, but I think there is enough here to justify passing WP:GNG, albeit weakly. Nsk92 (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Flush Keep- sure it probably did exist, but was it ever considered a serious museum? How many visitors did it have? Unless someone can find a source that gives that kind of information, I'd get rid of it. It seems like it was just a private collection, probably not a real museum that people would vists, the article says it was in an apartment. Either way it seems like a pretty shitty museum. Also the user that created this, only contributed to this article leading me to believe he was the owner or otherwise associated with it--Rusf10 (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying this should be wiped off the site, or are you poo-pooing its inclusion?198.58.171.47 (talk) 06:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the article has been improved and more references found, I can see keeping this. It's still not my idea of a museum, but it seems to have gotten enough coverage.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there is another layer, or, if you will, ply to this article. I checked Google books and there are many many sources that mention it and talk about it as an offbeat museum. There was a snippet in Time magazine. Those who say this is a crappy article are wrong: it should not be wiped off the site. Those who propose delete really need to roll with the sources:

• Wisconsin's rich toilet paper legacy is threatened Milwaukee Sentinel
• included in the book "offbeat museums"... A quote fromt he article that is last in this list: "That year, 1997, the museum was featured in a book, "Offbeat Museums," by Saul Rubin. Four pages were devoted to the Madison Museum of Bathroom Tissue and people were encouraged to send in rolls."
• Oddball Wisconsin: A Guide to 400 Really Strange Places
• mention in express.co.uk
• Mention in Madison State Journal
• Mention in Chicago Tribune
• FEATURE ARTICLE IN MADSION STATE JOURNAL, detailing its demise.

Of course, there are many more and it is destined to live on in infamy.198.58.171.47 (talk) 07:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY; article has been cleaned up by the IP. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

also paging EEng as DYK candidate for April Fools 2018 Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Did you know ... that after the toilet paper museum folded, its former home got wiped out?" EEng 17:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame they didn't go out of business because of embezzlement, then bankrupted, 'cause then we could say "The Museum of Bathroom Tissue was ripped off, folded, and wiped out" EEng 08:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP editors are not afraid of the shitty work.198.58.171.47 (talk) 05:06, 26 November 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 21:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yolanda Wood[edit]

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

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

There are no reliable sources on this article, only IMDb which is not reliable, and seeks to cover everyone ever appearing in film, while we have a much higher limit, 2 significant roles in notable producetions, or a few other guidelines. None of which Wood meets. Additionally my search for more sources came up totally blank on sources on this Yolanda Wood. There is another Yolanda Wood who is a Cuban born professor of Latin American art, even she is probably not notable, but I get lots more hits on that Yolanda Wood than this one. The article has been tagged for improvment for over 8 years, and nothing has improved. Wood is generally a bit part actress, this is not the sort of thing that notability is made of. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 18:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 18:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 18:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- does not meet WP:NACTOR; all roles are minor. Significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails NACTOR and GNG Wolfson5 (talk) 22:27, 27 November 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 21:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ristr8to[edit]

Ristr8to (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Tagged as CSD A7 by User:Largoplazo, but I think a full AfD is deserved, seeing as it has been covered by multiple sources. Paul_012 (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- SPA-written article on a single outlet? I appreciate that the reviews are good, but how is it notable? Rhadow (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 18:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 18:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete insufficient coverage in independent sources to establish notability and even meet WP:CORPDEPTH which requires more.  — Ammarpad (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and likely salt; the page was speedy-deleted twice this week. It's not a notable coffee shop. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:54, 26 November 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 21:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teyona Anderson[edit]

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

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

Non-notable person. Dubiously sourced (use of personal Twitter). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete when half the sources are twitter posts, a person is probably not notable. Nothing here suggests notability. Too much of this is her employers ad posts and the like.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 18:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 18:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 18:36, 23 November 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 after merging relevant prior edit history. bd2412 T 04:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muncie River Monsters[edit]

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

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

I can find no evidence that this team ever existed. All the templates and links are for Northern Kentucky River Monsters, so it should probably merged there if there is anything verifiable/notable to merge. Frietjes (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @DMC511: who blanked it back in 2013. Frietjes (talk) 14:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Team never played a game in Muncie. Tom Danson (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 18:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 18:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 18:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This appears to be the older article for the NK River Monsters that got moved. The move-redirect was then turned into the current NK River Monsters page. If we are concerned in preserving the edit history then this should probably be a merge/redirect. If we don't care about the edit history, then delete. Yosemiter (talk) 23:13, 26 November 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 21:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Broken Hourglass[edit]

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

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

Un-PROD'ed it myself, as it was PROD'ed before. Fails WP:N. Looking through the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, there are some mentions, but no in-depth coverage. It's mostly mentioned in passing, IGN has an interview with one of the developers, but that's pretty much it. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra, as I removed the PROD, I've AfD'ed it. Hope that's okay. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Sorry I should have spotted this myself.Mccapra (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 18:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the nom. --Izno (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Little to no in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:51, 24 November 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 nomination withdrawn. Looks like I've got a minority viewpoint on this one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ZipBooks[edit]

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

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

Non-notable piece of software, written by a COI editor. The article was declined at AfC, then moved to mainspace by Nihonjoe despite a fairly damning critique of the article on the talk page. Although the article has references, most (if not all) of them are press releases or self-published content. A search for other sources returns pretty much the same thing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COI drafter here. :) I can attest to the objectivity of the references. There are no press releases or self-published content in references in 1 - 6 or 12. The self-posted listings of ZipBooks integration pages were removed by this editor but added back by a different editor. I'm not sure the claims against the references bear up against closer scrutiny. For example, the WSJ clearly meets to notability standard. The second reference is n in a local newspaper. The third reference is a statement issued by the State of Utah Governor's Office. The 4 - 6 references are reporters for tech or accounting news and aren't advertorials. I think if you read the story it's pretty clear that these reporters are in some instances skeptics about the need for another accounting software program. Reference 12 is a review from PC Mag which also is pretty clear we wouldn't pay for. @Nihonjoe:Thoughts on the references mentioned? JustaZBguy (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nihonjoe's analysis on the talk page clearly indicates problematic sources, but also clearly shows significant coverage by multiple sources that are independent of the subject, including the wsj.com reference behind a paywall (to which I have access, and it's a good source). The question is, should the article be about the company or the software? It is possible for the software to be notable (by virtue of independent reviews) without the company being notable. If the software is notable, the article could easily be re-cast to be about that. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As I showed on Talk:ZipBooks, the article very clearly meets WP:N and WP:V, so there is no valid reason for deletion. The article was completely rewritten by me before it was moved, so the "damning critique" is irrelevant. I agree with Anachronist regarding the need to perhaps make the article about the software or the company instead of both. Right now, they are really pretty much the same thing as they only have this one software as far as I can tell. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ritchie333: Also, if the "damning critique" was what I wrote on Talk:ZipBooks, that was written by me before I rewrote the article to remove all the problems. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:32, 25 November 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. – Joe (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Mitić[edit]

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

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

The article is unreferenced. She is not listed as a contestant at Miss Universe 2017. Neither of the external links mention her. Where is the evidence of notability? David Biddulph (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  The only specific concern of the nomination, that the article is unreferenced, is no longer the case.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guilty as charged! :-) David, I want to encourage you to do some research before nominations, check out WP:BEFORE, and withdraw this nomination as the article is now sufficiently sourced. gidonb (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete being runner up in a beauty contest is not enough to make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And 1+1=2 but how do your AfD statements relate to the articles for deletion? gidonb (talk) 08:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at this editor's edit history, we see rapid fire !voting in AfDs sorted alphabetically, typically spending one minute per AfD.  When I studied this pattern a couple of months ago, I noticed that the editor never brings sources to the AfD.  This means to me that this is evidence that the editor is not looking for sources.  The !vote here is especially transparent as the nomination is not based on notability, nor does the !vote claim that the topic fails GNG.  The editor completed this !vote in 1 minute 12 seconds. 
  It is my opinion that this !vote is not a valid argument for deletion, so if the nominator withdraws under the advice of WP:BEFORE, the AfD can be closed under the authority of WP:SK.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's an ongoing problem at many AfDs. gidonb (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. With 4 sources, 2 national and 2 regional, fully focused on this model she clearly passes the WP:GNG. Nomination seems to fail WP:BEFORE. After thorough referencing and cleaning up the article, the question in the intro is adequately answered but all statements are no longer relevant. gidonb (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since then I've added several newspaper articles on Mitic and on shows in which she participated. There are many more. The early coverage seemed lacking as she went by Sari Mitić at that time. For even more references, also follow Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. gidonb (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per gidonb and the sources indicating notability. The nom needs to understand that current state of the article is means for improvement. Deletion is a final resort after due diligence has been done to determine if the topic is viable for an article. --Oakshade (talk) 05:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per gidonb, and per references. passes WP.GNG anyway now, even without beauty pageant participation.BabbaQ (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  Article is no longer unreferenced.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The nomination was made in good faith, but I could find no sources (in any language which I could understand) to convince me that there were reliable sources. I realise that sources not in English are acceptable, but it needs to be left to those who understand the languages concerned to assess the acceptability of the sources. Obviously the article has changed out of all recognition since the nomination, and it is good that a number of apparently erroneous statements which seemed to be the main claims to notability in the version which existed at that time have now been removed. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime! All sources I added are reliable. Most also count to Mitic's significance, others just for referencing info in the article. Information that I could not confirm, I have removed. I kindly requested an anonymous contributor not to add speculative data. There is no question of bad faith here, just a recommendation to check better before AfD-ing. As under our policies there is no case for deletion, how about withdrawing? gidonb (talk) 05:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK to be white[edit]

It's OK to be white (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Memes may be speedy deleted but this has several sources albeit not inline citations. Also not notable on its own. Article is not new either. Some sources are quite recent so the article might also be WP:TOOSOON. Ꞷumbolo 21:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting this article would be an act of racism. Don't do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.245.48.71 (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep easily passes GNG.
  • www.metronews.ca/news/edmonton/2017/10/31/pro-white-message-taped-to-native-studies-building-day-after-racist-pumpkin-incident.html
  • http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/its-okay-to-be-white-signs_us_5a01c91ce4b0368a4e87165e
  • http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary/2017/11/08/why-finding-it-s-okay-to-be-white-posters-at-the-u-of-c-doesn-t-surprise-anyone.html

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• My gut is that it would be best to merge this to some article representing a higher level of abstraction to this idea. We should keep the information, but this is a very short article on what may be a very fleeting meme. bd2412 T 03:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Exactly, it could be merged to pol or, as a last resort, to 4chan (which is a FA!). Ꞷumbolo 08:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Should be deleted or merged per WP:NOTNEWS point 2: "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". No sign of lasting significance for this prank/meme. Could go under 4chan; eventually might be included as a sentence or two in an article on race relations in the United States. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 4chan per above--DynaGirl (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Change vote to Keep due to ongoing coverage. Seems to meet WP:GNG. --DynaGirl (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, International coverage, different incidents, easily passes wp:gng. --GRuban (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, several different articles of event and reaction all ober the country, it fit wp:gng. --Aréat (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It's a meme for which we have a few decent sources from the span of a few days. Notability requires lasting significance. If there were a huge amount of coverage in these few days such that we could assume it would continue, that would be one thing, but this seems like it's more likely that it won't be lasting. No opinion on a merge target. Don't know that 4chan would be right for WP:WEIGHT purposes though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: Given there has continued to be coverage, I've struck my delete vote. Still not clear whether we would look back a year from now and call it "lasting coverage" but it's trending that way sufficiently that I don't see a reason to support deleting. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: to 4chan#Internet memes. 4chan seems apt at making memes which attract transient media attention due to their controversial nature. I doubt any lasting notability independent of 4chan will be available, and at any rate it's too soon to tell. For now, best just to merge; Wikipedia isn't a meme database. Janet-O (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Striking out sockpuppet !vote. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Rich Farmbrough. groig (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Several people have asked whether there will be ongoing coverage. Here are some articles from just the past 2 days from 2 rather widely separated locations: Nov 13, Grand Haven, Michigan; Again; Nov 13, Vancouver, Washington;Nov 14, Washington State University. I'm going to go out on a limb to say, yes, there will be ongoing coverage. --GRuban (talk) 20:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • And it keeps coming: Newsweek, Saturday, Nov 19 (large article); The State (South Carolina), yesterday, Nov 20 (not very large) --GRuban (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes GNG per Rich Farmbrough. Aleccat 01:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and selective Merge to 4chan - (unless someone identifies a better merge target.) That's what I had already written, based on the shallow sources on the page, and above, all more of less shallow breaking news reports like this WaPo headline":'‘It’s okay to be white’ signs and stickers appear on campuses and streets across the country. But I try to be fair, so before clicking "save changes" I read the WaPo story, which is INDEPTH reporting; so is this one in Jacobite The Asymmetric Meme Warfare of “It’s OK to be White”, this in the Washington Times: OK to be white’ campaign rankles higher education, and several others. There does seem to be enough here to KEEP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. A 4chan orchestrated papering of schools is a single event. No notability beyond that so no encyclopedic value beyond this. jps (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are misusing that guideline. WP:ONEEVENT deals with articles about people - this is a protest or event as far as I can tell. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 21:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could try to be a little less pedantic and look at the spirit of the guideline. In any case, the exact same principle applies to events. So WP:LASTING then. jps (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're different incidents, in different, widely separated locations (by the width of a continent!), with different people involved. But even so, we've got thousands of articles about single events, see Category:Events_by_month for example. Some of the events became Wikipedia:Featured articles, such as Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner after it survived its nomination for deletion. This series of events seems to have plenty of lasting impact, as you can see by the news articles that keep being written about it throughout the course of this AFD, even. --GRuban (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:LASTING: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable."E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:EVENTCRIT which says "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." AusLondonder (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment another source just today, Toronto Sun. The hits just keep on coming. --GRuban (talk) 01:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. "Keep" supporters: What about this has "enduring significance" per AusLondonder?  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  16:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  16:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  16:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  16:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep You know, the coverage has become overwhelming. Passes WP:GNG just too well. Plus, this is more than mere shock news and viral phenomena; this is continued coverage. Found more sources:

• The Diamondback
• New Jersey 101.5

It's just that after the Unite the Right rally, and other conflicts over race on campus, the public is more aware of racial events. I expect this event to be referred back to later. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  16:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sufficiently covered in press to pass WP:GNG. My very best wishes (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, easily enough mainstream coverage. There are loads more noteworthy sources to add too. Mdmadden (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I do see a continuing drumbeat of media reported incidents, and and today yet another INDEPTH essay: Is It OK to Be White? Meme Wars: the insular, circular, and viraltastic history of a racist idea. I do continue to think keep, perhaps revisit in six months.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Right-wing blogger arrested at 'It's OK to be white' speech at UConn CNN, today. Fights break out at ‘It’s OK To Be White’ event on UConn campus Russia Today, today. I think we can close this. --GRuban (talk) 17:20, 29 November 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 21:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NKR 15[edit]

NKR 15 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Blatant Crystal balling now obvious. Not even any evidence of limited notability.

See WP:NFF Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom: WP:CRYSTAL or WP:TOOSOON ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree WP:TOOSOON, and further more who's to say that this even meets up with WP:N. Grapefruit17 (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above arguments and per WP:NFF: Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as an unsourced negative article about BLPs. Fram (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of americans accused of sexual misconduct[edit]

List of americans accused of sexual misconduct (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Such a list is problematic from many different angles. First of all, it is not referenced, which is a particular problem when listing living people in combination with a potential crime. Secondly, the inclusion criteria "famous" is too ambiguous. Thirdly, in legal terms we have the presumption of innocence. If someone is just accused and later cleared, his personality rights should be preserved. Just being accused effectively means nothing. Fourth, legal definitions change. In the past, any form of homosexuality was sexual misconduct, it is not any more. Would we include anyone accused of something in the past that no longer is considered such? _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. ansh666 03:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wretched (metal band)[edit]

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

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

Cannot find obvious sources, all the sources are primary. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - The links in the article are just window-dressing. Beyond the source from the label, routine announcements, and schedule listing, there is simply no WP:SIGCOV I could find in a search.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This will forever remain a shabby article but I will not argue against the presumption that notability exists in sources we cannot actually see.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. A reasonable amount of coverage found from multiple sources, but generally fairly brief items: Exclaim!, Decibel, Worcester Magazine, Allmusic, (again). Much coverage of metal bands tends to be in print sources that are not found online, so it seems likely more will exist (e.g. in Kerrang/Metal Hammer/Terrorizer etc,). One could also make an argument that four albums on Victory Records satisfies WP:NMUSIC criterion 5. --Michig (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BAND #5 - has released two albums on Victory Records. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep In addition to the WP:NBAND#5 argument posited by Lugnuts, the sources that Michig has found show significant coverage, though I am unsure whether those consist of reliable sources. I was considering erring on the side of caution here, but the probability of the SNG/SSG and multiple reviews found in and outside of the article push me over here. I'm not an expert here, so to some extent relying on Michig's note that 'much coverage of metal bands tends to be in print sources that are not found online, so it seems likely more will exist (e.g. in Kerrang/Metal Hammer/Terrorizer etc,)' (Italics not mine). Again unsure on reliability however. Analysis by more experts in this field would be definitely a big plus. J947 ^(cm) 21:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep –Here are two separate entries from print version of Metal Hammer which corroborate Michig's thought that there may be more sources in print. 1 Thomas Strater: Wretched. Beyond the Gate. In: Metal Hammer. September 2010, S. 99. and 2. Thomas Strater: Wretched. Son of Perdition. In: Metal Hammer. Mai 2012, S. 105.. I don't have access to either, so I am not vetting the content, also both entries are from the version in dewiki. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:09, 27 November 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 21:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Rush[edit]

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

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

This lawyer fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being an exec at a development bank isn't enough for notability. No independent coverage that would meet WP:GNG. agtx 19:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:46, 29 November 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. The keep arguments were solidly within policy guidelines. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hanuman Mandir 82 RB[edit]

Hanuman Mandir 82 RB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Hanuman Mandir 82 RB Xx236 (talk) 10:07, 15 November 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 November 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. It already had a reference for the 2001 census, and I've replaced it with one for the 2011 census. Government-recognized populated places are always kept. It probably needs to be renamed, though. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:NPLACE. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:50, 29 November 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 21:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kathir Dhananjay[edit]

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

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

Premature creation. There's virtually nothing written about this guy. Google search here is fruitless for the lead character (Sweet Ravi) the guy played in his most recent film. The only hit for Kathir Dhananjay is at Wikipedia. News searches on the Tamil script in the article for Jai Rudra (which I guess is the guy's real name) turns up unrelated news articles. Even using the custom Indian news search tool, I can't find anything past a casual mention. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - about all that a Google search throws up for this guy is the Wikipedia article. Vorbee (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:02, 30 November 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 21:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Sarasola[edit]

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

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

DELETE - does not meet WP:BIO Mks89 (talk) 02:49, 23 November 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 November 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Nominated by a user with no edit history or contribution. 180.190.163.40 (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The subject does not meet notability guidelines. Nominations should be considered on their merits, not on who the nominator is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 24 November 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 21:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boiga siamensis naranjita[edit]

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

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

At best this is original research. At worst it's a hoax. Not supported by cited references (which aren't reliable sources). Zero Google Scholar hits. Zero Google hits apart from Wikipedia mirrors. PROD contested by page creator. Paul_012 (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This Boiga is boigus. The idea that species have some inherent notability (WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES) is predicated on there being a publication in a reliable source describing them. Google has nothing but Wikipedia mirrors to support the existence of this subspecies. Plantdrew (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. No source anywhere mentions this subspecies. Probable hoax. — cnzx (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete It's an obvious hoax if there are no Google Scholar hits and no Google hits outside of Wikipedia mirrors. 98.209.191.37 (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Assuming the maximum of GF, we require a) general acceptance of status as a subspecies, and b) sufficient material pertaining to that subspecies in particular to make it worth splitting from the species article. Neither is present. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete can't find reliable sources about this species either. And leaving this kind of OR is detrimental to Wikipedia in great measure compared to other articles . — Ammarpad (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For my opinion, this article material should be posted on Wikispecies. Here is encyclopedia project, WP:NOT#OR. SA 13 Bro (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikispecies won't take it either w/o reliable taxonomic sources. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge - I don't think it is a hoax. This subspecies is mentioned here, a citation I have added to the article. There is often disagreement among researchers as to whether a certain population is a full species, a subspecies, a different colour morph, or whatever, and we should respect this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you winkle out the alleged description publication - "Boiga siamensis naranjita (Frank Cuesta, 2015)"? I think in this case we'd need it - that source doesn't pull enough weight, in absence of any other reference. I can't find any publications under that name at all.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: You may like to merge the source information at Boiga siamensis article, I do some google search, there was some quality note for verification, but not much, the other article has too much of unsourced materials need to be citation. SA 13 Bro (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Cwmhiraeth, that page is most likely a circular reference which copied text from Wikipedia that was originally added by Khunpolrattachana (diff). I'll remove the reference. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There are no peer-review sources even claiming this subspecies exists. The original creator says in the page history that tests are "ongoing", so at the very best the entire article is premature. Until and unless a peer-reviewed description is published, it's unsourced and should be deleted. HCA (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - HCA is probably right. If there is no published paper, we should not have the article, but if the subspecies is confirmed later, the article can be reinstated. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Probably of interest: Frank Cuesta, alleged "describer" (article created by same editor as this one). I doubt there's a publication forthcoming... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For my guess, I think User:Khunpolrattachana has a peer review as User:Rushenb on Wikipedia. SA 13 Bro (talk) 17:47, 29 November 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 21:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Janaka Wijayanayake[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NSCHOLAR - is only a senior lecturer and there is no indication that he satisfies any of the criteria under WP:NACADEMIC. According to Google Scholar he has a very low rate of citations. The majority of sources are from the University that is his employer - which is what you would expect from any senior lecturer. Dan arndt (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC) Dan arndt (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not pass notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the citability is quite low, and there is nothing else to indicate passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Citation counts in his Google Scholar profile are too low for WP:PROF#C1 and there is no other evidence of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In British nomenclature of academic positions, "Senior Lecturer" is a permanent, full-time position, with job security and benefits; and is not a temporary 'Visiting Lecturer', or (in American terminology) a non-tenured faculty member below the status of Assistant Professor. How "low" is low, when counting citations? One commentator above says his stats are "very low", another say "quite low", another says "too low for WP:Prof#C1. But there is also WP:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics, which warns against putting all your trust in Google Scholar. I would also point out that many of his papers are co-authored, and there are no dates on his academic or job achievements in the article. That said, the Subject's credentials are thin at best. --Vicedomino (talk) 07:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Editor is correct to point out that citation data should be used with care by those not familiar with the system. There is no pass here of WP:Prof#C1.

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 21:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Human Rights Council of India[edit]

National Human Rights Council of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Human Rights Council of India Stats)

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

Nominated for speedy deletion by Bharathiya before.[21] Article made by an editor who probably came for promoting this particular organization.

Subject fails WP:ORG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• G11 - Not entirely sure why User: Liz only seems to have addressed the G3 nomination (which yes, shouldn't have been there). But this is G11 pretty loud and clear. The current version, which actually seems to be the more toned down version, doesn't have really anything here that someone would obviously need or want if the subject was in fact notable and they sat down to write a quality article. That's... G11. GMG^talk 17:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what is G11, I have read just now. Some admins may decline because article is around for a long time, maybe AFD is only way. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete India has one of the largest, liveliest media scenes in the world, yet this orgganization got 7 hits, the sole hit in India was echoed, so make that 6 hits, total in a proquest news archive search on "National Human Rights Council of India." But that hit is a doozy. NGO misusing its identity, warns rights panel, 2 December 2010 Hindustan Times. Here's the text: "India's apex human rights authority, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) Thursday alerted state governments on the misuse of its identity by an NGO with a similar name. The organisation in question is the National Human Rights Council of India (NHRCI). "The National Human Rights Commission has asked all concerned state governments to take action against the National Human Rights Council of India (NHRCI) for misusing the name of NHRC. The concerned organisation's email address also resembles the NHRC's," a statement said here. "It has been observed that some NGOs give false impression to the public that they are working on behalf of the NHRC. Some of them also wrongly claim to be either members of the NHRC or being associated with it," it added. The commission said that the NHRC had no branches in states, and it neither registers nor authorises any NGO to carry out work on its behalf. "Any institution or NGO claiming to be functioning on behalf of the NHRC or having affiliation with it is liable for action against it by the concerned state authorities as per the law," it added."E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note The AfD seems to have been created incorrectly, it is redlinked in the template on National Human Rights Council of India.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done GMG^talk 19:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment User:RoySmith, User:E.M.Gregory, this edit by an IP broke the AfD link, and that was done yesterday about 18 hours ago. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding that, but let's just let this run anyway. It's not like there was a huge amount of disucssion, and the world isn't going to end if we talk about it for another week. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to relisting, was just clarifying that I had properly created the AfD. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The original 2009 article linked to the website of what now describes itself as National Human Rights Community India ([22]) whereas the article, after being stripped down by IP edits in 2010-11, links to the website of Human Rights Council of India (Protection of Human Rights) [23], with the article text a close paraphrase of the latter organisation's website. It claims to have been founded in 2012, 2 years after the NHRC warning (alternative link) which may have referred to the first organisation. I suspect there's been repurposing along the convoluting article history. But anyway, the wording is promotional (and possibly falling under Copyvio) and I am seeing no evidence that either of these organisations meets WP:ORGDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This "article" is literally a short paragraph with an empty external links section. First person pronouns were used making it totally informal, the writing is just poor all around, and the oddly placed link and author being related to the organization makes it seem like advertising of some sort. Not meeting WP:V, is however meeting WP:NOTPROMO which is also bad. Grapefruit17 (talk) 16:28, 23 November 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 by Raymond3023. (non-admin closure) cnzx (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Pepper Exchange[edit]

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

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

Article created in 2006 and still it fails WP:ORG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hi Raymond3023, if you are going to nominate an article for deletion then you are going to need to explain how and why an article fails a standard.You cannot simply say it does without explanation. A brief search on the internet reveals that this exchange certainly did/does exist^[1] and its clear the page needs updating, this is not a reason for deletion.Egaoblai (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Egaoblai it seems that I bad results from the Bing search at the time I nominated. Now I am finding a few descriptions on reliable sources in form books as well. I withdraw this. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:19, 23 November 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.