< 9 October	11 October >

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 Copyright. Seems like there is equal support for deletion or redirection, if fine tuning is needed it can happen at WP:RFD which is custom made for "redirect vs. nothing" decisions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright protection[edit]

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

Effectively a WP:TWODABS page with a clear primary topic by historical importance, copyright. Reference to technology used to protect copyrights can be addressed in a hatnote. bd2412 T 00:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "Copyright" gets about 30 times as many page views as "Copy protection". bd2412 T 00:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without redirect. WP:RFD might have been a better venue, but never mind.

I would not be shocked by a redirect to copyright, either, but if we do that, then we need a hatnote at the copyright article, which (ceteris paribus) will slightly blot the page. I think it is one of the cases where deleting completely will save a bit on the hatnote, and not lose much (since a search result will easily point the reader to adequate articles). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not at all necessary. It essentially is copy protection which can clearly be linked to by the copyright article. It only means one of the two pages linked while having close ties with both. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 10:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to copyright as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT and adjust the hatnote. This is a widely used phrase to refer to the protections that copyright confers upon the rights holder. [1] [2] [3] ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not needed as a disambigation link. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to copyright per WP:CHEAP. It is a common phrase, and having the redirect could help in indexing. agtx 16:05, 16 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Island That All Flow By[edit]

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

Searches turned up very little, and certainly not enough to pass WP:GNG. Was deprodded without rationale or improvement. Uncited film (other than imdb). It lists a set of awards, but what awards is anyone's guess. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has won six notable awards and was broadcast on a major network , references have been added that confirm the awards so it seems more notable than a run of the mill television film. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Numerous awards and on a major network. Awards have been sourced. This distinguishes it from unremarkable TV films.desmay (talk)
Keep The major awards are sufficient to meet criteria #3 of WP:NFO. PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted, has won some major awards. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (non-admin closure) The1337gamer (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frog X Bird[edit]

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination). When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was Speedy delete. (non-admin closure) The1337gamer (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Reliable video game source web search returned 0 useful results. Also a WP:PROMO and WP:COI piece. The1337gamer (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 22:03, 10 October 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. Also because many people say there is nothing mergeable, if people wonder why I didn't go for a redirect or a merger. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Best pony[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG. Information and sources cane easily be wp:merged into My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic or similar pages. Comatmebro (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As much as I love My little Pony, this should be merged into the MLP page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. It doesn't have enough content to justify having a separate page for this. Alexius08 (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect not independently notable Atlantic306 (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this is not wikia. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NEO. Also seems to be an extrapolation of "Best girl" which doesn't have its own page despite being an arguably more popular saying._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect given above commentary. I am not certain about the value of a merge, but I am not opposed to that if a consensus is reached in that direction. Aoba47 (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the appropriate My Little Pony article--maybe the fandom one. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As much as that might seem to make sense, there is zero material in the article that is notable and would merit a merge. It would simply be adding unencyclopedic material to the article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Beaver[edit]

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP, with some advertorial overtones (we don't care whether a journalist ever called anybody the next somebody else), of an actor whose main notability claim is that he's "probably" best known as a costumed and masked antagonist on a children's game show. This is not a major role for the purposes of passing WP:NACTOR, in the absence of reliable source coverage about his performance in that role — but none has been provided here at all. And on a ProQuest search, I get a smattering of glancing namechecks of the actor's existence amid search results that are primarily about an unrelated First Nations chief from northern Alberta — even the article with the "next John Candy" quote in it isn't a particularly strong source for much of anything else — so there's just not enough substantive reliable source coverage about him to salvage this with. Bearcat (talk) 21:46, 10 October 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) 01:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I redid Bearcat's research, using slightly different sources, yet drew the very same conclusions: [1] Notability cannot be established with current references. [2] Notability could not be established with other online sources. If someone has new insights, I'm willing to reconsider. gidonb (talk) 02:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unsourced WP:BLP. Unable to confirm that the Toronto Star called him the next John Candy. Lack of substantive articles from reliable sources.desmay (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I did find the "John Candy" hit on a ProQuest search; it was in 1997, so it wouldn't turn up in an open Google search. But the article didn't say much else of any substance about Beaver besides the prediction. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too much based on non-reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 16 October 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. OK, first off it seems like the nominator and one delete !voter are sockpuppets and that would normally get the AfD thrown out, but there are legitimate users making arguments in favour of deletion. The crux of the argument is whether GNG is met (and whether BLPREQUESTDELETE applies, seeing as the article topic is a Wikipedia editor and they have opined in favour of deletion). Numerically it's fairly evenly split after throwing out the socks but the "delete" case is going in more depth about whether the sources are (in)substantial enough. That plus BLPREQUESTDELETE tips it over into "deletion". It's OK for Wikipedians to have articles so as long as normal biography inclusion criteria are met (i.e I am not familiar with any Wikipedian-specific policy different from normal biography policies), generally. Finally I see some users arguing whether to have a general "List of Wikipedians" article. It didn't get much discussion and I point people to WP:REFUND if they need the content of this article for such a project. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Pruitt[edit]

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

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

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

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

Not notable, permission not given for creation by Ser Amantio di Nicolao. Mrme i 22:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Permission not needed. Coverage in El Diario [4] and Time [5] is enough for WP:GNG, and widely-enough separated in time to prevent this from being a case for BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per David Eppstein. If James Heilman deserves one, so does Steven Pruitt. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but do you think that James Heilman deserves an article? NikolaiHo^☎️ 00:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Mrme i 22:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mrmei, I have stricken your above delete !vote, as per WP:AFDFORMAT, which states, "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." Everymorning (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Press coverage fine, and we don't normally ask the subjects of our articles for permission. Ser Amantio was one of my first contacts here, because I recognized his name from Gianni Schichi, my favourite opera. Brianboulton, author of that and many other featured articles, should perhaps also be featured in an article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Over my dead body. Brianboulton (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure thing, Brian. You'll enjoy it. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Keep. As per David Eppstein Wikipeida is an encyclopedia, not a book. Policy doesn't require permission of the subject to make an article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure while there is some verification for this, unsure about the wisdom of having this article given it is about a Wikipedia editor and there are BLP issues as well as Internet privacy issues. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- (Point of order): Is the subject of this article: {a) excused from commenting by dint of common politeness; {b) prohibited from commenting by COI (c) required to comment in order to give his permission (d) something else? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep per Martinevans123 's response.~~ Delete — I nominated the article James Heilman for deletion-that went horribly wrong. I stated that if James had an article, so should Ser Amantio. Guess what? Someone decided to create it because of that. Because I was disappointed by the result of that AfD, I decided to originally state keep for this article because it is true, if James has an article, so should Mr. Pruitt. In my opinion, neither are close to notability. NikolaiHo^☎️ 02:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- For context, the other AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Heilman (3rd nomination). And "went horribly wrong" apparently means that Nikolaiho canvassed a bunch of editors who he thought would agree with him, but they all sided with keeping the article instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the clarification. Apparently now, posting a reddit on/r/wikiinaction is also canvassing. When I saw that the article is tagged with the category 21st -century singers I almost died laughing. What has this become?! No normal people read these useless bio's anyways so i'm going to stop wasting my time over it.

NikolaiHo^☎️ 02:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is very much canvassing. For one thing, it is far from neutrally worded, and for another it is off-wiki, and would apparently not have been visible here without Everymorning's intervention. So it fits two of the four characteristics of inappropriate canvassing on WP:CANVASS, non-neutrality and stealth. I don't want to violate WP:OUTING by asking whether that was you, but whoever did that could face sanctions here for their misbehavior. This AfD is already somewhat questionable because the nominator turned out to be a sockpuppeteer; it doesn't need help making it more so. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have absolutely nothing to do with that reddit, I learned about it from that tag. The author of it wasn't telling people to come here and vote, he/she was just expressing his opinion, so what's the matter? NikolaiHo^☎️ 00:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, glad to hear it wasn't you. But my feeling is that if someone just wants to blow off about an AfD they disagree with, the better approach is to wait until it is closed so that it doesn't look like canvassing. That also has the advantage that there's less chance of looking stupid when the AfD changes direction and ends up aligned with their opinion. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it might be for their benefit not to have posted that but is it actually canvassing. In other words, should the canvassing notice on this AfD exist? That is my concern. NikolaiHo^☎️ 03:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The first commenter there clearly believes its intent was to canvass. Regardless, what's the harm of the notice? It's just a helpful reminder to any newcomers who might wander by (canvassed or not) and to the closing admin. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though I'm flattered to have been considered. Various issues, none of them having anything to do with BLP issues (believe me, I'm fine with anything in the article appearing publicly. I'm an open book, generally speaking.) But I've never been convinced that there are enough sources to currently justify writing me up. There aren't but four, after all...and there are aspects of my life missing from them all (birth date, birthplace, etc.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Suggest we have a List of Wikipedia people and Steve has a section. The recognition by Time is great but do we really have enough material for a biography? I wouldn't want one if ever I got coverage for most articles created personally. I think we should wait until there is more coverage like Rosie has had for his own article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIm agree with @David Eppstein Amirdaeii (talk) 07:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep other editors have attracted media attention for GNG over much weirder aspects of their editing history, David Eppstein and Andy Mabbett have the answer it meets the requirement JarrahTree 10:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No clear reason for the article's existence, and sure, Jimbo deserves an article, but as per SADN, not WP:Notable. Sure, he has 2 million plus edits, I have 2 million plus bacteria on my toilet seat. I consider notability to be something you can put on a resume and have the interviewer want to hire you immediately, or not hire you at all. Sure having two million edits to Wikipedia is impressive, but you put that on your resume and the guy will probably just go "cool" and pass right over it. Met meg an slay 00:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above editor has been blocked as a CU confirmed sock of the nominator. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to add this. Jimmy Wales does have an article. Bobherry Talk Edits 04:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG. Bobherry Talk Edits 14:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it's all news reports, which are almost always primary sources, and these cases are human interest stories, which to quote WP:NEWSORG, are "generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy". In fact, one can question the idea that these are human interest stories — they all tend toward being opinion pieces of who's-who, and opinion pieces definitely aren't reliable for anything other than "Editor Alice thinks X". Nyttend (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I like Dr. Blofeld's idea of a list of the Wikipedians who have had some off-WMF news coverage, but perhaps do not want an article (as here) or do not have adequate coverage to quite meet GNG (or be comfortable) for a full article. So, I can't decide if my !vote is weak delete or merge with list yet to be created, but this is my two cents. Montanabw^(talk) 05:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Here's my take on the situation. Ser Amantio himself is arguing that he doesn't pass notability guidelines and I have to agree with him. The coverage I can find for him seems to center on the coverage in TIME, which is frankly very recent and doesn't show a true depth of coverage. Now while some of the notability guidelines do state that two sources show notability, that guideline is meant to cover cases where those two sources assert that the topic or person has done something that would be considered so major and significant that the article can be kept on that claim alone. Very, very few things rise to that level of notability, which is reserved for things like winning an Oscar or assuming a major political office (like President of the USA). In other words, those two sources would contain information about something that is so incredibly notable that it's obvious that more secondary, reliable sourcing is available somewhere, even if it's not immediately accessible.

I'm not trying to downplay Ser Amantio's contributions here or his impact on us and others, but right here and now he has not accomplished that level of notability, as the TIME designation would not be considered to be at that level. It's the type of thing that makes it incredibly more likely that more coverage will become available, but he hasn't received that level of notability right here and now. Now if we had a list akin to what Dr. Blofeld has suggested, then I'd whole heartedly suggest listing Ser Amantio's article there, but we don't have a list like that and I would recommend that anyone debating on starting such a list wait and start a discussion first because there is a lot of consideration that needs to be done for that list. (IE, notability threshold, coverage, etc.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. When a Wikipedia editor says "Delete my article; I'm not notable", we really ought to do it — who's better familiar with the sources? This isn't someone saying "I don't want a Wikipedia article!" but someone saying "I'm familiar with WP:BIO, and I don't pass it". Nyttend (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think the notability here is borderline (one event really) (and uh, no offense Ser Amantio) and if it's borderline it should default to the subject's own preference. So if Ser Amantio says delete here, so do I (if it wasn't borderline, it'd be different). Also, I've seen this kind of thing go bad before. Volunteer Marek 19:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Substantial coverage in Time and Vocativ, therefore meets GNG. Jakob (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Basically of the same opinion as Volunteer Marek. Whether the paragraph in Time, a paragraph in Inc, and some decent coverage in El Diario and Vocativ amounts to not just notability but a stand-alone article isn't clear, and since the subject would prefer deletion, I hop off the fence to the delete side on this one. Not opposed to Blofeld's idea of creating a larger list and merging, fwiw. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article goes totally into the realm of navel gazing. Having articles on people who have made huge numbers of edits on Wikipedia without longstanding and good quality sources about them, just undermines the quality of Wikipedia itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the real world, this subject's notability is minor, not "substantial". – Athaenara ✉ 08:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is a superb Wikipedian and it is appropriate that our most prolific editor has been recognized in human-interest stories in the media. However, notability cannot rest on one assertion (prolific editor) repeated by a number of outlets, particularly given WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and the fact that the subject has above requested deletion. The confusion regarding James Heilman is regrettable—this is not the place to expand on that, but even quickly scanning Heilman's article shows it has 59 references covering half a dozen different aspects of his work. Johnuniq (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Guyette[edit]

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

Not notable, based mostly on blogs Arthistorian1977 (talk) 20:58, 10 October 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) 01:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this photographer is clearly notable per non-passing coverage in significant books. The bad news is summarized in the intro and actually goes beyond: the article is a product of a blog that culminated in a self-published book (or the other way around) and in all fairness could be viewed as promotion for these. The article should be cleaned up from most references and a new set of references should be added (since current valid references underwrite facts, NOT notability). IF the conclusion of this AfD is the same as my conclusion (and that remains be seen!), I am willing to cleanup and reference. Just leave a note on my talk page if help is needed. gidonb (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have updated the endnotes of this page to include more books. 12 October 2017 ... kindly look it over. Thanks.

Note I'm hoping someone else, not hostile to LGBTQ and fetish commnunities, can contribute to this page. There is a public domain image of Charles Guyette here: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7f/6c/ea/7f6cea062c113395136a134cdc40e683.jpg

Don't know how to update the wiki page with the image. Hoping someone will kindly lend support and assistance. A million thanks. 10/12/2017

Hi Arthistorian1977, are the improvements in referencing sufficient in your opinion for withdrawing the nomination? gidonb (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After looking second time, I do withdraw my nomination.Arthistorian1977 (talk) 05:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Arthistorian1977! gidonb (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anon, we can't help you because the copyrights are unclear. Also please refrain from making hostile statements yourself. gidonb (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. And salt; recreation ought to be discussed in WP:DELREV. It seems like while the keep camp is far more verbose, the arguments by the delete camp do address the keep arguments and have convinced more people. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kedar_Joshi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is the third incarnation of this page, with no increase in notability, and obvious signs of self-aggrandizement and disruptive editing of other pages. LordQwert (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the deletion should extend to the stub pages in the Interlingua, and Interlingue languages. (Those are different things?) I'm not a speaker of those languages, so I'm not comfortable instigating those deletions. LordQwert (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the page Kali has been heavily edited by Hinduresci, including significant content related to Kedar Joshi's personal beliefs. I have reverted those edits and addressed the topic on the talk page. It is likely to me that several other articles related to Hinduism may have been edited by Hinduresci to align with his personal perspective. LordQwert (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other pages which may false under the auspices of a general review/deletion: Kshipra_Joshi, Bhanumati_(Mahabharata), Durukti, The_Mahābhārata_(Smith_book), and W._Douglas_P._Hill. Note that Durukti is, I believe, the entity Kedar Joshi claims to be, and that Hinduresci has added many links to the page, and references to the entity, from other Hinduism related Wikipedia pages, not listed here.

Keep And you really seem to misinterpret my activity here! Hinduresci (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stands clearly appears to denote that the subject is notable. Hinduresci (talk) 19:35, 10 October 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 October 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@nom, In view of the message you left on Spinningspark's talk page, if I had been Joshi himself as you seem to suggest, do you really think I would ever at all introduce the article on Kali (demon) in such scathing (though advertently factual) manner, e.g. fetid man who holds his penis in the left hand? I wonder whether it is possible for any sensible and equitable man to imagine the answer to that question in the affirmative! Hinduresci (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Was deleted by consensus twice already. Does not appear to meet WP:NBIO or WP:NPROF (in relation to philosophy). I failed to find coverage in large English papers. Also has obvious WP:PROFRINGE and WP:PROMOTION issues in its current state (I removed an undue section with WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE and MOS:QUOTE issues for now). —Paleo Neonate – 23:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Failed to establish notability like in the second version of this article. Alexius08 (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never intended to promote the subject. And I do not understand how it fails to establish notability. The 3 to 4 foreign language sources are not presumably unreliable. They are objectively deemed important, and so must be the topic covered by them substantially. Also, take, for example, a look at the manner in which the subject has been quoted by a reputed scholar at the Arizona State University! Do you not think it seems to suggest that the subject is worthy of notice? And would you, by the way, presume that the scholar intends to promote Joshi as well? Hinduresci (talk) 01:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon there is more than sufficient objective evidence that he is a notable philosopher, though he may, of course, not be exceedingly notable. Hinduresci (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Put differently, I do not understand how it is objectively deniable that the subject meets WP:BASIC and maybe WP:AUTHOR too. Hinduresci (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm not notable myself but can find plenty of references to my name in computer science related literature including by professors and some notable people, and I authored some published books (although I am anonymously editing here). Google results are plenty because of my participation in many opensource projects. There is no article about me on Wikipedia and doubt that I'll ever meet notability requirements for other volunteer editors to write one about me. If I wrote one, or hired someone to, it likely would not pass AfD. Wikipedia is simply not an indiscriminate collection of information or directory. Significant coverage should be available, not only mentions, quotes, press releases, non-independent sources coverage, bibliographies, etc. —Paleo Neonate – 01:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage indeed looks available, and it is presumably independent and reliable. Also, in fact, the varied citations in scholarly articles by others who are presumably independent of him, look good enough to understand that the topic is proved to have worth of being noticed. Hinduresci (talk) 01:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any prejudice against the foreign language sources, the prejudice is rather disruptive, not constructive. Hinduresci (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Neither online nor English language sources are necessary for establishing notability. And the sources with substantial coverage cited in the article are some of the most prominent and established ones (some even in existence since 1881) from a major language other than English, with around 73 million native speakers. Also, since he is the author of multiple notable (or important) aphorisms (which are pieces or works of literature), cited in the main prominently by presumably independent reputed scholars from academic disciplines (which even seem different from his own) including physics, cardiology, oceanography, as well as by rhetorician/s and editor/s of some of the most important newspapers such as The Times of India, he is manifestly a notable (or important or influential) author, though the degree of notability (or importance or influence) may not be exceeding and does not have to be either. Hinduresci (talk) 07:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@nom, If the significant content you mentioned at all appears to relate to Kedar Joshi's personal beliefs, let me apprise you that the appearance merely seems to result from a queer combination of accident, factuality, and bibliographic reference to his work, none of which, I suppose, is gratuitous. Hinduresci (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldnt find any in depth coverage. Also, per Paleo's vote, and his other comments in discussion. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Paleo and prior deletion discussions. WP:FRINGE personality who fails to meet WP:GNG.PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial (or non-trivial) coverage is given; and non-English and offline sources are acceptable. That "I couldnt find any in depth coverage" makes no sense. Hinduresci (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Not every source must be of the standard of The Washington Post, for instance, to be deemed reliable and acceptable.

Let me also cite a couple of relevant and interesting statements:

"Notability of articles is sometimes very subjective, varying with time and geography. For some people, US 1980 presidential candidate John Anderson might be a noted person; others who don't live in the United States might feel that Scottish 18th century scientist John Anderson is more prominent."
"Deletionism may favor rich countries, since it's there most people have a computer and the Internet at home. (poor countries are usually less in the medias, except wars, famines and natural disasters or sporting success) This would give a very Western World-fixed POV. Sure Wikipedia is no charity project, but it still shall cover the entire world." — Inclusionism Hinduresci (talk) 07:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficiently notable, self-promotional. Nothing has changed since the last discussions. QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see there is nothing self-promotional, and he definitely does not look insufficiently notable either. Are you just totally looking down upon the non-English sources? If you are, I have to say you are mistaken; and I believe to have already mentioned the reasons. Hinduresci (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I clearly get the impression that since a number of suitable sources have so far been found, it is likely that even more sources exist as well. Also see WP:NPOSSIBLE. Hinduresci (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could actually disclose how I ran into this topic; how I managed to procure the sources and so on. However, the only trouble is the terrible controversy that potentially surrounds my contribution to Kali (demon), which discourages me from revealing much information. 17:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

In other words, since my contributions, especially the ones to the article on Kali (demon), are, it can certainly be argued, religiously controversial to a great extent, I better be reticent for my own security. Hinduresci (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Let me substantiate it to you how this topic is notable! Let's keep aside the substantial coverage in the presumably independent and reliable non-English published sources as well as the questionably substantial astrological coverage in the couple of English sources which include The Indian Express. What seem to remain then are the dialogues published in Philosophy Pathways and several presumably independent and reliable, published English sources which appear to cite him along with his aphorisms. Now, if we keep aside the dialogues too, we would be left with the following: Kedar Joshi is the author of multiple noted aphorisms, one of which has been cited in a column as prominent as the Sacred Space of The Times of India, while another one has been cited by an American cardiologist right at the beginning of one of his research papers published in a journal as reputed as the Journal of the American College of Cardiology; yet another aphorism has been quoted by a very reputed researcher affiliated to Arizona State University on the first page of one of his published academic works, along with a picture of Kedar Joshi himself. There is one more aphorism which has been cited, along with an aphorism by Confucius, in a scholarly journal right at the beginning of the paper published in it. There is also a Spanish author who not only seems to have cited him in his reliable, published work but also appears to have mentioned him as a philosopher who is so young and yet so lucid. A journalist from southern India once asked a noted individual for his opinion on one of Joshi's works. And a book written by an independent author and published by a noted publisher cites one of his aphorisms too; and so on.

Now, according to WP:BIO, "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note" – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life." Is it not apparent from description above that there is objective evidence that Mr Joshi is indeed interesting or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded? Remember, it is not at all necessary for a biographical topic to have a full account of its life covered in independent and reliable published source/s; because, although, for example, Kshipra Joshi is clearly a noted topic which seems to meet WP:NGYMNAST as well as WP:ANYBIO, even its full date of birth could not be known from any independent and reliable published source, let alone a full biography. And let me ingeminate that although I created the articles on both of the aforementioned Joshis, I have no personal connection to any of them, and I also believe to have mentioned fairly strong logical evidence to the contrary. — Hinduresci (talk) 23:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, is it wonted for an average author from this planet to have their work (independently) cited in a column as discriminating as the Sacred Space of The Times of India? No, not at all! That means Joshi is notable (or unusual or rare or uncommon). Is it, at all, wonted for an average mortal to beget multiple works of noteworthiness? No, not at all! Again, that means Joshi is notable. Is it wonted for an average person to have their works independently featured in most renowned publications in virtually the most prominent fashion imaginable? Of course not! That means Joshi is notable, yet again. Is it wonted for an average human to be independently alluded to in a fairly reliable source as an intellectual with astonishing intelligibility? Obviously not! Joshi is notable on that account as well; and so forth. And do remember the incontestable please: The sole thing notability boils down to is unusualness (or rarity). — Hinduresci (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fringe theorists need exceptionally good sources to be kept, and we lack that here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable on account of the rationale given above; ends the matter. — Hinduresci (talk) 04:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the concern as to fringe theorist is indeed credible, the sole trouble with the article would be the "Philosophical views" section; and not the article itself. — Hinduresci (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And as long as the fringe views are not given undue weight, the trouble should be trivial. — Hinduresci (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The topic is obviously unusual (or notable) enough to be recorded in Wikipedia, especially when Wikipedia is not made of paper. Even the aforedescribed nature of the citations of his aphorisms is indicative of striking unusualness (or clear notability); and that truth is, in fact, also noticed in a fairly reliable Marathi source with an article about him. Besides, since it is quite presumable that almost all of those citations have been independent of Joshi, it should also be presumable that the substantial biographical coverage of him in the non-English source(s) did not result from self-promotion either. Furthermore, it is equally evident that a substantial (or encyclopedic) article could be written from reliable sources. Deletion is nearly out of the question. And pretty much the same could, of course, be said about Hill as well. — Hinduresci (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable self-promoter. It looks like that this person has spent less time in being an "author, philosopher" and spent more time in promoting himself across Wikipedia projects. Capitals00 (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yours is a subjective viewpoint virtually contradicted by evidence. — Hinduresci (talk) 16:59, 17 October 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 merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. Pretty obvious consensus here. Don't understand why this was relisted. A Train^talk 20:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sharn (Forgotten Realms)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. All sources are primary or from user forums. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge per BOZ, I don't see any RS'es. Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters, not really much to merge as it's entirely fancruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 19:46, 10 October 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 Blythe (doll). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Blythe[edit]

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

Non-notable book from non-notable author with virtually no in-depth coverage.

Long existing article that has a somewhat problematic editing history. Sources are poor, and would seem to fail reliability test. Time to put it before the community for review. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete i cannot find anything about this. --Axiomus (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing to suggest that this is at all notable. I have also reverted to a previous state to remove a copy/paste of the official blurb, and requested revdel. GMG ^talk 14:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Redirect per Mduvekot. GMG ^talk 19:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blythe (doll) Gina Garan has received some coverage of her work, for example here, in what I think is a questionable "Forbes contributor" source, and here. There are mores sources but in totality it's not enough to make this book notable enough for a standalone article, or even for an article on Garan herself. Mduvekot (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 19:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is reasonable alternative to deletion, though its mention there should be sourced. Don't think this discussion warranted the relist. czar 04:02, 11 October 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 University of Sussex#Campus media. Why this was relisted with such a clear consensus? A Train^talk 20:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

University Radio Falmer[edit]

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

This page was created in April 2009 and most of the initial edits were by a single user, Arcmon, who hasn't made any other contributions to Wikipedia either before or after. All but one of the references are now dead links, and a Google news search for "University Radio Falmer" gives only one result, to a reblogged press release. I would suggest that the article fails to meet Wikipedia's threshold for notability ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 11:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 11:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Sussex#Campus media. Nothing to suggest this needs a stand alone article, and nothing to write one with. GMG ^talk 14:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. There are a few sources floating around in a Google search, but not enough to require a separate article when University of Sussex#Campus media is available as a natural place to cover this station and the university's other media. I added a little bit there. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as noted. Back in 2009 those links still actually went somewhere. If they're dead there's no content here. Syrthiss (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect It's a shame there are no further sources since the station has been around since 1970s, but since that's the case it isn't notable on its own Aloneinthewild (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as noted. It's true that this isn't reliably sourced well enough to stand alone as an independent article topic, but it's verifiable enough to merit a mention in the university's article — which, in fact, is precisely what WP:NMEDIA dictates for student media outlets that cannot be sourced well enough to stand alone. For a station that's been around since the 1970s and used to operate on a conventional broadcast band, I suspect that better sources actually might exist in archived media databases, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can dig out enough media coverage from microfilms or whatever to do better than this, but it's not exempted from having to be properly sourced just because I think better sources might exist if nobody can actually show that better sources do exist. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After a week, there's not been much progress on the article: a comment on my own talk page, and a handful of predominantly unconstructive edits by sockpuppets (most of which have required reversion) ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 19:36, 10 October 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. Clearly no consensus to delete this article. Merge discussion can continue on the article's talk page if desired. A Train^talk 20:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bare-metal server[edit]

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

Appears to be a redundant page, describing a lot most of the things in computer server. Also only has three citations. AtlasDuane (talk) 09:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not redundant, because although a bare metal server is simply a computer server, the term is used when in contrast to a virtual server. With the growth of cloud computing in particular, we now need to make that as a distinction we just didn't need a few years ago.

As to the number of citations, then you're welcome to add some more. What is WP:POLICY now ? Articles need to have 4 citations or they're speedy-deleted? Or is it 5? Or 23? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This term is more than eligible for inclusion, but it's an editorial judgement about whether it warrants a separate article. The issue is how much of the article's content is better covered elsewhere, and what scope should be left for this article. Once that is determined, are we left with a WP:PERMASTUB, and is that actually an issue, or are we better off redirecting to a subsection of another article. TheDragonFire (talk) 07:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So where would you merge it? To Virtual server? - where we don't even have an article? And which represents the opposite of this term. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article does have only 3 sources, but there are more sources available if you do a Google search. Capitals00 (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Merge the term is jargon and the article is low-quality. I'll comment with a redirect target recommendation once I find one; it's either a synonym for computer, or an antonym of virtual machine but neither is a redirect possibility. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Redirect to somewhere we haven't got" How does that work then?

Also when did " article is low-quality" become a reason to WP:DELETE? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dedicated hosting service may be an option. And I'm advocating deletion of most of the existing content as an editorial decision, not as an AfD one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So because this article is "so badly sourced it must be deleted at once!", you want to redirect it to Dedicated hosting service. Which has no working references at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, my vote should have been Merge. That said, not everything at AfD is entirely about the existence of sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is the purpose of Wikipedia still to be an encyclopedia? (I'm unconvinced this week) As "bare-metal server" is a current term of art (just look at Google), then how is this encyclopedic goal served by redirecting a WP:NOTABLE term to an unsourced article that doesn't mention it? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 19:36, 10 October 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 merge to Battle of Tolbiac. A Train^talk 07:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Strasbourg (506)[edit]

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

I couldn't verify the information in this article. I have no idea which source "Fertig 2" is supposed to be, but in any case I only find reliable sources about the battle in 357, and not about this one (looking in English and German). Fram (talk) 07:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I've found the sources mentioned, including Fertig, and added new ones both in the text and the bibliography. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And which of these sources discuss a Battle of Strasbourg in 506? For example "Fertig 2, 281" is highly unlikely, as Fertig 2 has only 16 pages[6] (Fertig 1 has bout 30 pages, so even a combined edition wouldn't get so far). All I see in e.g. Wood[7] is general discussion about a 506 battle, probably about the Battle of Tolbiac, nothing about a 506 battle of Strasbourg. Please indicate exactly which source, on which page, discusses the actual topic of this article. Fram (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you read the text, you'll see that the Fertig reference follows the sentence "A panegyric by Ennodius about Theodoric the Great speaks exaggeratedly of a victory by Theodoric over the Alamanni." I've checked the references and they appear to back up the text they refer to. Why don't you work with me to help improve the article further? Just a thought. --Bermicourt (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Fertig reference? You mean the one pointing to a page number that doesn't exist? Why, instead of all this, can't you answer a very simple question: which source, page, line discusses a 506 Battle in Strasbourg. If possible, please provide a link to an online copy. Fram (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Strasbourg was not known as such until the late 500s or there abouts. Was Argentoratum. Conflation with Tolbiac seems plausible.Icewhiz (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC) struck, vote below.Icewhiz (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect (perhaps rename and repurpose) -- Alamannia deals with its subjection to the Franks and Ostrogoths. The whole basis of this article is that there "must have" been a battle, which some historians postulate to be near Strasbourg. Any argument using "must have" implies a guess, which should mean that the subject is not suitable for an encyclopedia article. The broader subject as to what historians suggest to have happened might be. The matter is covered in the Merovingian Duchy section of Alamannia, and it might be appropriate to have a more detailed "main" article on this, and this article might be restructured and repurposed for this, but it cannot retain its present name and battle infobox, becasue we do not know where or even whether it took place. The target might be Conquest of southern Alamannia by the Franks. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge This battle may be hypothetical, however there are sources for it, and it could probably be merged into some expansive article. It is probably unreasonable to expect be able to find enough sources on a minor battle from 1500 years ago to expand on this, however the article is not too bad. Dysklyver 08:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources are there for it? Please don't take the word of the article creator for it. "the article is not too bad" expect for that minor fact, that most sourecs are not about this battle but about well, perhaps, something happened between 501-507, it might have been in 506, it may have been a battle, but apart from one letter which vaguely refers to this we know nothing about it. If it needs to be merged or redirected, it should point to Battle of Tolbiac, which is actually, verifiably, and regularly speculated of having happened in 506, as mentioned at that article. This article is basically a fork based on thin air where so far not one actual reliable source with this speculation about a battle in Strasbourg has been given. Even if such a source would materialize eventually, it would have to be rather substantial anyway to warrant a full article and not just a footnote in an existing article. Fram (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sources found. Okay so I've added 2 sources that definitely support the article.
- Geunich states that "Claude deduces, as most historians now do, that there were two or three battles between the Franks and the Alemanni. The first is supposed to have taken place at Zülpich [=Battle of Tolbiac] in the 480s or early 490s, leading to the knee injury of the Rhine-Frankish king, Sigibert. The second conflict, which was dated by Gregory to the "fifteenth year" of Clovis' reign, i.e. 496/97, was that "conversion battle" that led to his baptism. In the third battle, in the year 506, Clovis gave the Alemanni such a "crushing defeat" (at Strasbourg?)" that they "lost their political independence." This third battle was the occasion of the intervention of the Ostrogoth king, Theoderic the Great, who campaigned for the "exhausted remnants" of the Alemanni and ordered Clovis to stop."
- Ewig more briefly states that in "506, an unforeseen event occurred. The Alemanni rose up against their Frankish overlords under a military king, who apparently mobilised the majority of the tribe. Clovis dealt them a devastating defeat (at Strasbourg?), which put an end to the political autonomy of the Alamanni, whose king fell in the battle, and which led to considerable upheaval in the land.... Worms and Speyer and the lands north of the Oos were annexed by Francia. The Franks pursued their vanquished enemies, who fled in droves to Rhaetia in the region governed and influenced by the Ostrogots."
- The original text (in German) is on the talk page for those interested, but I've added the references to the article.
- Other scholars mentioned by Geunich include Anton and Schäferdiek, but I haven't had time to research those. However, it's clear that there is more than enough evidence at this stage to warrant keeping and improving it. Bermicourt (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. So, at the time of your article creation, and at the time of your keep, you didn't actually have any sources about this battle, and the sources you added then also didn't mention the battle? Anyway, now we have two sources who have "(at Strasbourg?)". Basing an article on a coment in parentheses and with a question mark seems not enough to meet WP:N at all, which requires indepth, significant coverage, not throwaway speculation in brackets. Mentioning this speculation in an article about the Frankish-Alemannish battles is of course possible, but I see no reason to have a full article on two repetitions of "(at Strasbourg?)". Fram (talk) 06:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree with Fram, the two sources provided suggest a hypothetical battle, without nailing down specifics.Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've found yet another source by Johannes Hoops that refers to this battle in 506 as taking place wohl bei Straßburg i.e. "probably by Strasbourg". I'll add that too.
    - @Fram. The article isn't based on a comment in parentheses, its based on a scholarly assessment of the sources and Strasbourg is the place they believe it happened. That's history. The whole article is now well sourced and it's clear there is much more information out there than any of us first thought; of course it could be further improved as we look at the work of other scholars (I missed out Becher), but that's true of most articles here.
    - @Icewhiz. I think scholarly consensus is that this battle did take place; the only uncertainty is where. But there is general agreement that Strasbourg is likely. We could add a "?" to the title, but IMHO that's unnecessary; the article explains the situation.
    - These new sources put the veracity of the article beyond doubt and this delete discussion should be closed. What is now needed is work by genuinely interested editors to improve the article, based on the additional sources I have mentioned and maybe then a review alongside other related articles like the Battle of Tolbiac. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - The whole article is now well sourced? Yes, if you believe including sources you haven't seen and pages which don't exist is "well-sourced", then sure. "a scholarly assessment of the sources and Strasbourg is the place they believe it happened. " Well, you have one source putting it "probably in Strassburg", two sources putting it in parentheses and with a question mark, and you ignore the sources which think the 506 battle is the Tolbiac battle. What is needed is what has been suggested by others, a general article about the Franko-Alemannish conflict of 490-506 or thereabouts (now a section in Alamannia), discussing things like this sometimes hypothesed Battle of Strasbourg and the much more well-established battle of Tolbiac. The article we have here has very little info on the actual battle and a lot on the historical background, so the obvious thing is to have an article on the historical background where the very little info on the battle is included together with the other battles and different opinions. Fram (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        That's a very unreasonable interpretation: the "sources you haven't seen" are in the article, fully referenced. I'm sorry you couldn't find the right page in one source, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist! Instead of criticising every improvement and new piece of evidence, why don't you welcome and encourage them? After all, it shows your intervention is paying off! And perhaps even work constructively and help me and others develop the article. Surely as an admin, you should be cheering us volunteer editors on, not wearing us down! This article is now way better referenced than many on Wikipedia. If we delete everything that doesn't meet FA standards, there'd be little left and, frankly, few editors willing to help. Bermicourt (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or else keep) with Battle of Tolbiac. I do not believe there is consensus that these are different battles. The historiographical issues should be dealt with in one place. Srnec (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Most scholars, however, would disagree with you and I'm inclined to go with them. "That the Franks defeated the Alemanni in 496 with the help of God, and that their king, Clovis, was then baptized in Reims, still belongs to the general knowledge which every half-educated [German] person has internalized since his school days." In other words, Geunich is saying that the notion that there was one decisive battle is an old schoolboy's tale; that recent scholarship has unpicked into the 2-3 battles he has described. While several scholars merge the 480s/early 490s conflict with the 496/497 at Tolbiac, few combine it with this separate battle in 506. But it'd be great if editors other than me did some actual research and added to the sum of human knowledge about this period of history. Bermicourt (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Bermicourt: - it might make sense to create a "Alamanni-Franks conflict" article - in such an article one could list possible battles, and evidence for their possible existence, as well as discuss battles where there is a consensus. The problem with this article it discusses a possible event that some historians surmise occurred at this year and location.Icewhiz (talk) 09:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Icewhiz:. That makes a lot of sense. From my research, it is difficult to untangle the battles clearly from one another in the primary sources so, not surprisingly, the secondary sources differ. Geunich, who does a summary of scholarly thinking, says most historians agree there were 2 or 3 battles. Whether the Battle of Tolbiac (=Zülpich) was first or second is unclear. If we created a generic "Frankish-Alemannic conflict" article, we'd need to merge this one and Battle of Tolbiac into it. I'm willing to give it a go, but would appreciate help. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Tolbiac could remain standalone as a sub article (as there seems to be a consensus it happened), the wider conflict\war should cover it as well as surmised additional events and outcomes.Icewhiz (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Hmm. There was defo a battle at Zülpich (Tolbiac); that's mentioned by Gregory. But scholars don't agree on the date. I've seen all three dates associated with it. Essentially all that seems definite is that: there were at least 2 battles, one of which was at Zülpich, one was in 496/97 and one in 506; Sigobert was lamed at Zülpich; Clovis was the victor each time and converted to Christianity as a result of the 496/97 battle. The current Battle of Tolbiac article doesn't reflect the level of uncertainty over the Frankish-Alemannic conflict or the latest scholarly position. In reality, its details are almost as vague as Strasbourg. @Auntieruth55: are you able to shed any light on this. Bermicourt (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 19:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Create Frankish-Alemannic conflict article and, depending on what that looks like, consider merging both battle articles into it as neither appears to be attested in any detail in the sources and several theories abound. For consistency, I'm using the same naming schema as another conflict in ((Campaignbox Battles of Clovis I)) called the Frankish-Thuringian campaign (491), ~~but for which I can find no sources at all!~~ for which I have now found several sources. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to proposed putative name above.Icewhiz (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Sources have been found, historical confusion need not be solved at AFD.L3X1 (distænt write) 03:09, 18 October 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. Very clearly no consensus to delete here. Discussion about redirection can continue on the article talk pages, as necessary. A Train^talk 20:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheepdog[edit]

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

Persistent edit-warring and blanking of these articles. AfD the lot, let's get some agreement as to whether they belong or not. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the lot. These are clearly real cartoons of the 1950s, produced by a major studio and distributed worldwide. I can see no reason why they fail any of our notability policies. I can see no reason to keep one article and delete the others, as has been happening repeatedly (not even merging, simply blanking them).

If sourcing is currently poor, then WP:SOFIXIT. This is US mass-market media within living memory. Surely the sources are out there for those who know animation history. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheepdog - None of these individual cartoons pass WP:GNG. No in-depth sourcing about any of them. A table, with a brief description of each could be included there. Almost all the current articles consist almost entirely of plot summary. All pertinent info could be included in the rather brief target article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - btw, I'd be more than willing to create that table in the target if the end result is to redirect. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know, many of the Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies shorts are discussed extensively. Unfortunately, it's not exactly too easy to get a hold of a lot of these sources. I've personally been wanting to expand upon some of these articles for some time (and have done some before). I could imagine at least Don't Give Up the Sheep staying, as it was a milestones short, being the debut of Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheepdog. Let's start with this. Unfortunately, that book preview only shows a tiny bit of observation about it, but if what is said about the other shorts are indication, a few things of substance may be said. I'll have to look more into this later. Kokoro20 (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm the author of these articles. At one point in time, they were awarded with a DYK for the research I did on which scenes were eventually censored. If I recall correctly, somebody then came along and deleted those facts (along with the references) claiming they were trivial, which triggered the corresponding images to be deleted, and then a year later they came back to complain that the articles contain no references. I just don't have the energy to devote to Wikipedia politics any more. --Skrapion (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Things like the censorship of the smoking break is exactly what makes these interesting as encyclopedia articles. But repeatedly blanking them and shouting "just not notable!" is so much easier. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of these deletions seem to have been done by a single editor. This is pretty much all they do, and their clear POV is evident from their username. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to the parent article, Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheepdog; not independently notable. The content is all plot; a list of episodes in the parent article is sufficient. Plausible search terms, but stand-alone articles are not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To check whether significant sources could be discovered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 05:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let the page stay. I agree with Andy Dingley's claim and the fact that the two of them even had their own video game as well as other appearances in the Looney Tunes franchise. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all certainly the main article on the characters should stay, but I agree with Andy Dingley's reasoning in favor of keeping all of the articles in question here. Lepricavark (talk) 03:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - note to closer - all the keep !votes are not based in policy (since they all rely on AD's argument - which is a wp:ILIKEIT argument). There has been zero shown they meet either WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, AD's argument is that the articles do not violate any policies, which is not a mere ILIKEIT argument. It isn't really necessary to advise the closing admin, but if you must do so, please don't misrepresent the opposing views. Lepricavark (talk) 05:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, saying an article doesn't meet GNG or any of the policies/guidelines to warrant inclusion, but it does not "violate any policies" is pretty much a paraphrase of "This is a really great article, and I think it should stay", which is one of the 3 concrete examples given in ILIKEIT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside the fact that ILIKEIT is an essay which I am perfectly free to ignore, the keep !voters have not said that the article doesn't meet GNG or any of the policies/guidelines to warrant inclusion. In fact, this was AD's exact wording: I can see no reason why they fail any of our notability policies. Lepricavark (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's an essay dealing specifically with arguments not to use in AfD discussions. Yes, you are free to ignore it. Others are free to take note of it. None of the arguments have shown that these articles pass WP:GNG. Saying something, without proof, is meaningless. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know what the essay is about, and it does not apply in any case because saying that the article does not fail notability polices is not the same as saying "I like it." Lepricavark (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most people are saying to keep the parent article, no consensus yet on the others.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 19:32, 10 October 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) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Deutsch[edit]

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

Insufficient sourcing to pass GNG outside of a brouhaha over sourcing of a book. Tossing aside coverage of this single event, quoting the words of the complainant at an ongoing AN/I case over edit-warring on this piece, "His '15 year career in journalism' is not actually particularly notable and would likely be deleted as a stand-alone article."

I personally have no strong views on the matter but would like community input as to whether this individual's biography does or does not fulfill the General Notability Guideline or, failing that, any relevant Special Notability Guideline. Thanks. Carrite (talk) 12:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 13:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 13:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 13:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, albeit with some reluctance. (I was the one who said the above quote and brought this to ANI originally... and maybe I'll regret this !vote if the POV-pushing edit war continues eternally.) Deutsch doesn't qualify as a low-profile individual - he's self-promoted himself, he's written books & done book signing & self-promotion events, etc. So while his "normal" journalism career is of no importance as far as sources are concerned, his work as an author is of borderline notability, and the scandal was large and long-running enough as to not be a WP:BLP1E issue. (It also involved more than just the book... it also tainted the journalism career, with editor's notes and redactions being made retroactively to articles he wrote. So the SCANDAL was notable if not the career itself.) The fact that the scandal originally broke in March 2017, and has kept rolling since then with things like this April 2017 Rolling Stone article or this September 2017 Washington Post story, which are willing to make comparisons with notable-for-the-wrong-reasons journalists like Jayson Blair, also shows that the issue has legs. SnowFire (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Snowfire has pegged this one exactly.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the original article creator, I recall that the rationale for approval of the article initially was fact that Deutsch's books are carried in multiple libraries he and has written high profile stories for major pubs. If he was notable enough for inclusion then, he probably is now. That being said, I have concerns about what appear to be pretty transparent attempts to harm subject's reputation through excising of neutrality from article. I think the admins must make the final call here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexVegaEsquire (talk • contribs)

Well, if he was a WP editor and had done here the sort of writing that the Washington Post article documents, we would probably block him from editing. But such coverage probably does guarantee him an article; we do have Stephen Glass.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 05:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IAR. He probably meets WP:GNG, it probably isn't WP:BLP1E, and it probably doesn't contain personal attacks, but all are borderline. Given the long-standing battle-ground nature and WP:COATRACK sourcing of the article, the encyclopedia is better off without it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC, per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 19:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-extensive coverage. For those wanting a quick summary of this insane story this sums it up well. I was considering proposing moving to Pill City as a compromise, but a story that provides coverage of his other work makes me convinced that he is notable for all of his work, not just that book. I would move parts of the second and third paragraph into the intro to provide a broader coverage of his work from the beginning, though. Blythwood (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe the extensive amount of mention of articles are making the subject a bit too hyped, whether he fails GNG or not, I can't decide it yet. Lorstaking (talk) 04:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's clear from rolling Stone and other sources that morethan this one book is involved. That makes the individual also notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has independent sources covering him, though for all the wrong reasons. Either way, the article reads fine and passes some amount of notability. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 06:57, 17 October 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 V speeds#Regulatory V-speeds. With the caveat that expansion into a proper article with sources is still allowed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overspeed (aeronautics)[edit]

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

This so-called "article" escapes speedy deletion criteria by a hair! In essence, this article says nothing more than "overspeed is too much speed". It consists of:

a dictionary definition (violation of WP:NOT#DICT)
one line of advice (violation of WP:NOTADVICE)
five lines of patent nonsense

If it said anything more, we could have merged it into ... well, there are a lot of candidates. Codename Lisa (talk) 05:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to V speeds#Regulatory V-speeds, where it is mentioned. While severely underdeveloped, the article makes sense. The five lines are a starting list of what are termed V speeds. Overspeed itself is a standard concept in aircraft operation [8] and commercial aircraft have an audible overspeed alarm when V_mo, the maximum operating speed, is exceeded. Because an overspeed alarm condition is defined relative to a particular aircraft's V_mo (and M_mo, the Mach equivalent), redirecting to the V speed article provides the best context for readers. It is conceivable the topic could be expanded beyond a mention, in say flight envelope, but redirect is best option until that happens. --Mark viking (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Judging from what you said, the first line (advice-like) is V_NE, the second is V_FC, the third is V_MO, the fourth is V_FE, the fifth is V_LE and the last is V_LO. So, it is basically category-2 patent nonsense, not category-1. Thanks for explanation. —Codename Lisa (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize that patent nonsense had been categorized. Thank you in turn for the link. --Mark viking (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should stop saying "category-2 patent nonsense" and say "Content that apparently intended to mean something but don't". —Codename Lisa (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Per Mark. GMG ^talk 14:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable -- for example, see Flying Magazine for extensive details of what happens if you go overspeed in a Learjet. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Mark viking, who seems to have some knowledge of the topic. If Andrew Davidson wants to improve the article, I may change my vote, but there is no content that should be kept at present. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 19:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (nom), per Mark viking. Yes, I am the nominator, but I agree with the reasonable idea of one of the participants; that's all. —Codename Lisa (talk) 06:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but expand. Review in 120 days. It is a notable concept (for example, Flying Magazine). Give the author(s) of the article 120 days to expand the article. If it is not expanded, delete it as per WP:NOT#DICT. desmay (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rederect Per Mark viking. - ZLEA ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vijaya Lawate[edit]

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

no significant references for notability; known promotional editor DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Wikipedia notability guidelines. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are so many secondary references available for this article. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 09:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Per nom.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The cited sources are insufficient to establish notability. Delete. Alexius08 (talk) 23:54, 10 October 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. A Train^talk 07:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juni Cortez[edit]

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

This fictional character has no independent notability outside of the films which it appears. The article has been plot cruft and references for several years before today and as far as I can see the sources are not remotely good enough to esstablish any notability. Interviews form creaters and random webistes are not relibale sources. ★Trekker (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Nominator, your argument makes no sense. This fictional character has no independent notability outside of the films which it appears A fictional character would always have notability in and around the work that the character appears in. The article subject, the character has received significant coverage in multiple WP:RS. This article passes WP:GNG. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I recommend you rephrase that because your comment makes little sense. A character does not always have notability within its own world. The only decent ref I see speaks about the characters sister in depth, not the character in question.★Trekker (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bythebooklibrary: I would recommend providing links to prove that the character has "received significant coverage in multiple WP:RS", which you have stated above. The nominator's argument is well constructed so I would advise you to read the arguments for AfDs more carefully in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"A fictional character would always have notability in and around the work that the character appears in." That is false, per WP:INHERITED that character would need independent notability from the work they appear in. Also, the coverage shown is not "significant"._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment on WP:INHERITED. I have not checked to see about the coverage on the character so I cannot comment on that matter. Aoba47 (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Is WP:FANCRUFT that fails the general notability guidelines._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this character does not have enough real world notability to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no policy-oriented arguments for deletion and no evidence of an actual WP:BEFORE - WP policy requires that AfD noms proceed on the basis of the notability of the subject, not as demonstrated in the article. This character is discussed (not as a TRIVIALMENTION) in such books as Mediated Boyhoods and Home Movies and has a whole chapter in Critical Approaches to the films of Robert Rodriguez, as well as another in a doctoral thesis by Victoria Kearley. This clearly meets WP:GNG, and I am getting tired of people citing WP:FANCRUFT as if it were a policy and as if it gave guidance on notability issues. In-universe style in articles is a WP:FIXIT issue, not a policy-based ground for deletion. Also, it is for the nominator and the Delete voters to do the WP:BEFORE, FFS. Newimpartial (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acting high and mighty like people are crazy for not doing a deep dive into non fiction books about movies is not helping either. If this is really true, then give some proof instead of saying "gosh, check out the books from the library" and maybe people will change their vote. The burden of providing sources is on the creator of the article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the burden actually isn't there, in the case of AfD - the deletion criteria clearly state that the responsibility lies with the nom to do the BEFORE, and not to base the nomination on the state of the referencing in the article. I really do not know how the documentation could be more clear.

All of the books and the dissertation I cited came up in a simple search of Google Scholar. The responsibility is on anyone nominating a fictional subject for deletion or crying "FANCRUFT" to do at least this basic level of research. This isn't a matter of "high and mighty", it's a matter of respect for the bloody rules. Newimpartial (talk) 00:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doing "BEFORE" is not contingent on searching every method in existence, when the author of the article can't bother to source it, and nothing comes up in a basic search. If the sources are obscure, they should be included, or at least demonstrated in the AfD, without blaming the nominator and making it into a WP:ADHOM._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nom offered no evidence of doing any BEFORE, and your own !vote cited the GNG even though a simple Google Scholar search shows that GNG is met by this subject. That isn't "searching every method in existence"; it's the essential minimum in cases where regular web or media searches are likely to result in long lists of fan-generated material or trivial mentions. According to WP policy, insufficient citation in an article is never grounds for AfD aside from BLP issues. Newimpartial (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: no consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 01:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not independently notable of Spy Kids (franchise); no sources to meet WP:SIGCOV. A redirect of the name only can be done later at editorial discretion. No need to preserve article history as it's all in-universe content. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment - sadly, this experienced editor is contributing a non-policy-compliant !vote here. I have listed sources providing SIGCOV so there is no grounds for deletion per GNG. AfD is not cleanup. Newimpartial (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "independently notable" is not a valid deletion rationale. Notability is established through independent sources--financially and editorially independent of the subject itself--but in no way does notability require an element, especially a fictional element, have coverage or impact outside of its own context. Jclemens (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in ignoring an invalid deletion rationale which would be used to delete fictional characters all over this project. It will be a sad day when we have to say goodbye to articles on fictional Spock, James T. Kirk, Luke Skywalker, Darth Vader, Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and the many others who have a notability based upon the projects which created them. Characters have real-world results in relationship to and because of their projects. WP:BEFORE finds news and book results, but sources toward a topic based upon their projects will not deter anyone who be misreads the essay WP:INHERIT (it's not a policy or guide) . None of us will ever have Juni Cortez or Bugs Bunny or Captain Kirk knocking on our doors, but so what? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This is merely a slippery slope fallacy. There is no indication that a character from Spy Kids had the same real world impact as Captain Kirk. The article certainly doesn't give an indication._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Feel free to ping me when you send the Kirk article to deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, I may have phrased my sentence wrong. I corrected it. I didn't mean to insinuate Captain Kirk was non notable, just that you are picking extreme examples of articles that are obviously notable and wouldn't fall under the same criteria as this one._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)"[reply]
      - Ah... while actor William Shatner might have a real-world notability, using the nominator's arguments, Kirk does not and will not be knocking on our real-world doors. That's the weakness of his argument. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete lacks sufficient RS. Fails GNG. Coverage is inuniverse. Fancruft Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Can I just point out that this is another !vote that is not compliant with policy. We are supposed to be having an AfD discussion about whether the subject of the article meets GNG requirements. I have listed four substantial academic references (found using Google scholar) that show that it does. This !voter has clearly not even read the discussion, and has not provided any rationale grounded in anything but an IDONTLIKEIT reaction to the existing article. Not policy compliant. Newimpartial (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You did not "list" four references, merely noted that they existed in the manner of WP:SOURCESEARCH. You should link to them and demonstrate how they show real world notability if you want people to take them as legitimate arguments towards the article's notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I most certainly did list them, by name, and described how I found them. There is absolutely no requirement for me to provide links - the way you are shifting the onus looks a lot like just moving the goalposts, from here. The AfD criteria and the GNG are actually quite clear. Newimpartial (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: But James Tiberius Kirk does have real world significance. Much has been written about him apart from the in universe story line, he is a benchmark against which other SciFi spaceship captains are measured, and his is probably a household name.Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's fictional yes, and just as with Juni, all sources speak about him in relationship to Star Trek....the series which created him. The "slippery slope" is when one uses a personal opinion about how "important" that series is to its target audience. Better than arguing the issue, it might be better to redirect to where the information in Juni already exists...Spy Kids (franchise). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}

Delete - Run of the mill fictional character. Dlohcierekim puts the matter succinctly above. Carrite (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yet another !vote with no policy basis, and which does not seem to reflect even a cursory look at the sources on the topic. Newimpartial (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Provide links to the sources rather than an assertion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 19:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is not WP:FANCRUFT . Character was arguable to ,main character in the first Spykids film as per the Google books source given in the article. desmay (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barely any proper coverage specific to this fictional character, the refs given are barely related to the subject nad often make a passing mention at best; not to mention one of them is slideshow by Entertainment Weekly and another is a 8 Top Secret Facts tabloid article by People's Choice. Nothing to prove its notability at all (doesn't pass GNG by any regards). Also, Newimpartial needs to stop badgering every "Delete" voter, especially with that placeholder "comment" at this point. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 07:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That argument might carry more weight, QEDK, if you had provided a policy-compliant argument on the notability of the topic rather than an irrelevant digression on the sourcing of the article (but disguised as a !vote). Newimpartial (talk) 15:23, 17 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 in the United States[edit]

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

No useful content. Incumbents removed due to WP:Crystal and fact we don't know who the incumbents will be in a few months time ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 00:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For comparison purposes, let's look at 2017 in the United States. It was created in June 2016 with this edit, which seems to be a more concrete event than we have in the 2018 article currently. The 2016 version was created on 19 December 2015 (here). 2015, meanwhile, was created in July 2014 (here), and had much more structure than the other first edits I'm seeing. So being premature isn't, itself, a reason to delete - we've had more premature articles of this type in past years. As for content, well we know there will be events in 2018, and that they will happen in the United States, so we should probably consider adding them. Midterm elections, for example. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would agree with the above comment that the issue here seems to be more the current content (and past content) than whether a page for 2018 is viable at this stage as pointed out above there are legitimate things that could go here eg the various scheduled elections, scheduled major sporting events etc Dunarc (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Technically nom is correct, however this will be created in this form in less than 3 months (assuming the world doesn't end prior to 2018, and the country still exists). Similar articles were created in years past prior to the year beginning.Icewhiz (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 19:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep w/o prejudice to renom in 3 months in case the United States ends.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Things will happen in 2018 in the US. I can't believe that nobody added a single event that is scheduled to take place. I've just added three by looking at the 2018 sports categories. I'm sure there's more to the US than just sport, but it wasn't hard to find that sort of thing. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there's scheduled events in the USA in 2018 & we've less then 3 months in 2017. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per nominator's !vote, unopposed. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Augusta and Summerville Railroad[edit]

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

This excellent article stub about a particular short line is all original research. The article has no references that indicate the existence of the line or any of the details, apparently painstakingly collected since 2006. The article fails WP:V. This particular line is described in several legal articles[[9]]. It is unclear that this makes the short line notable WP:N. The article ought to say why it is notable and deserves to be in an encyclopedia. Eleven years should be long enough to add these details to the article. It is up to the editor adding text to provide references. Rhadow (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 18:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 18:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the writer must've gotten it from somewhere. In the old days railroads were named after the communities they connected - Providence and Worcester Railroad for example. Summerville, Georgia and Augusta are nowhere near each other and it's practically impossible for there to be a horse-drawn railway connecting the two. Maybe they meant Summerville, South Carolina but that distance isn't much shorter and the latter is a suburb of Charleston. It seems more likely they wouldn't stop at Summerville. I'll do a little looking. --Oakshade (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This railway did exist and there is extensive coverage from government reports and the like.[10][11][12][13] --Oakshade (talk) 04:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Oakshade. Also, the editor that PROD-ed this article is doing the same to many other railway articles, and is not abiding by WP:CHANCE. Morphenniel (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep -- references added. WP:CHANCE does not apply here, not after eleven years. WP:SNOWBALL does. Rhadow (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User: Oakshade the railway did exist. There is extensive coverage from government reports and other sources. WP:Chance is not applicable.desmay (talk) 18:34, 12 October 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. Mainly per G7, but a little bit of SNOW/IAR as well. Primefac (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Becker[edit]

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

Fails all four points of WP:NCREATIVE. Not "widely cited by peers or successors"; not "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique"; not a "significant or well-known work or collective body of work...the primary subject of an independent and notable work"; not subject of "a significant monument" etc. Likewise WP:NACTOR. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nom has failed to take note of WP:GNG. Talking about WP:NCREATIVE is fine but that guideline specifically says: Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; ... A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. Since the sources [14] [15] [16] etc. all have significant biographies on her, and given there is a significant number of supporting references to her in other reliable sources this is a keep for me. Dysklyver 19:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was intentional, I am guided by the mini-essay "It is not possible to tell whether or not something is notable by the WP:GNG" at User:DGG. As DGG says, these marginal cases can be argued either way. We need to examine it at this AfD on its merits, not by a rote formula.

By the way, is California College of the Arts (your second reference) definitely talking about the same individual? They look different and have different fields of study (graphic arts vs theater). And the third reference is a press release. So by your own standards this individual ~~may not~~ probably does not fulfill GNG. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with User:MassiveYR. Also concerns of connectedness between the creator this article and the subject. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dysklyver, if you are going to appeal to the GNG, it has to be used as it is supposed to be. The GNG is not based on what is reported in the references, but on the fact that there are substantial independent third party references that are not just press releases or notices--the principle behind it is that independent sources find her worth writing about. Consider your references. References 1 and 2 not independent--they will do to establish the basic facts or her career, but are worthless for notability, because it is the bio of her on her own employer's web site. Ref 2 furthermore is unreliable no matter where published because it is not a NPOV description, but unsupported praise of her, and is therefore in the nature of a press release. Reference 3 is a plain press release, labelled as such. All three of this fail the requirements of the GNG, which was written in order to make plain that references such as these do not show notability . I can often argue the detailed requirements of the GNG in either direction, but I can not possibly argue that these three meet it, because they unquestionably do not. If I think she is notable, it would have to be based on some other reason,such as showing she met the requirements at WP:CREATIVE, and can thus be presumed notable, despite the quality of the references. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with everything DGG said, but I'm really wondering if this reference 2, California College of the Arts faculty, is the same person. Unless they can be two places at once it seems unlikely, as they are showing up as available for gigs in NYC and on faculty in San Francisco. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Considering the sources in the article and elsewhere, I'm not convinced that Becker is notable by the most relevant standards, WP:NCREATIVE (since engaged in multiple arts) and WP:GNG. If things change, I'd be be happy to reconsider. gidonb (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Drama-Logue Award that she has won. gidonb (talk) 03:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is why I don't like articles about actors. I am not convinced that its worth keeping this article given the fact that the references are inadmissible. I have stuck my initial vote above. Dysklyver 15:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The editor above has !voted their own article for deletion. Can we get a WP:SNOW close? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karam AboulHoda[edit]

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

Not a notable businessperson. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This reads more like a CV than an article. Delete. Alexius08 (talk) 23:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a run of the mill businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:49, 16 October 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Smith (registrar)[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced biography of a person notable primarily as a court registrar, which is not a notable position in and of itself — it makes him a clerk, not a jurist. The only other real notability claims being made here are that he was the father and grandfather of notable people (but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED) and vague, unsubstantiated claims that he was "prominent" for his marriage (but the article is written so awkwardly that it actually says he was married to an entire ethnic group rather than an individual woman, and while his actual wife is named in his daughter's article, it doesn't actually indicate any reason why his wife would be notable enough to make him "prominent" for marrying her either.) If there were any actual sourcing or substance here, it would probably be fine -- but as written, there's no discernible reason why he would qualify for an article. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what I can find on the 'net, there is little about him. Discretion and kudos given to anyone who turns up with something not online that discusses him significantly. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 12:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks references.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:16, 17 October 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 is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Charity Aiyedogbon[edit]

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

We are not a missing persons database and, as of now, there is scant evidence that this particular person's disappearance meets WP:NCRIME (despite the article being categorised as a crime). Literally hundreds of thousands of people go missing and quite a few of those do get contemporary mentions in the news media but no lasting notability etc can be gleaned from that. Sitush (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - substantial referencing and coverage of this particular event, passes WP:GNG, although article does require some clean up. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't explain my nomination as well as previously. As with other recently deleted articles of this type (and paraphrasing someone else at one of those), it isn't a crime, there are only routine reports on the case, there is no long-term impact, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a database of missing persons. Please remember that verifiability does not equal notability. If this were a BLP (and I suppose it might be), then WP:BLP1E could also apply. - Sitush (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - I was really caught unawares regarding this article's AFD nomination given its wide coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. This is a crime-related article and it passes the general notability criteria. There's no rationale behind your nomination of this article for deletion as it also passes the notabilty criteria for events and crime-related articles.-Eruditescholar (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've given a detailed rationale and it is one that has applied to other recently deleted articles of this type. I even mentioned NCRIME, so I can only assume you didn't actually read what I wrote. Aside from Facebook rumours and a dodgy lawyer, there doesn't actually seem to be any basis for considering this to be a crime. As I said, people disappear all the time - about 250k missing person reports a year in the UK alone. If you want to follow up past discussions, see my recent list of what are now redlinks at Talk:List of people who disappeared mysteriously - click on them and you will get to the discussions themselves. - Sitush (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would put it more correctly that your rationale is not sufficient to get this article deleted. The West and other developed countries usually keep data or records of their populations more carefuly and efficiently than their less developed counterparts. As a result, whatever happens to any individual in their territory is usually a big deal. Besides, the Western media often gets information published regarding missing persons unlike their less developed counterparts. This is very glaring since there are hundreds of Wikipedia articles on missing persons from these very countries unlike this lone article about a missing Nigerian woman which unfortunately is the subject of this AFD discussion. In Africa and Nigeria to be precise, missing person cases are often under-reported and for this one to attract significant media coverage, then it means there's something unusual or special about it -Eruditescholar (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the systemic bias card. It won't wash because it is nothing more than a run-of-the-mill disappearance. That's also why most of the 250k per annum misper reports in the oh-so-highly-developed UK won't wash either. We are not here to right great wrongs, nor are we a news outlet. - Sitush (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG. good sourcing as well.BabbaQ (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to say the same thing at every AfD you participate in, BabbaQ. It sort of loses impact after a while because there never seems to be any sign that you have actually checked anything, hence some bizarre deployments of your boilerplate !keeo. - Sitush (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep per EruditeScholar.

Please discount this !vote. The anon hasn't edited anything except another AfD - there is a template for this situation but, sorry, I can't recall what it is. - Sitush (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG with long-term coverage. Here is a source from 19 September 2017. As per WP:BEFORE B3, "If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors..." Yet there is no discussion on the talk page of the article, and instead there is post-nomination discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Post-nom discussions are common. A BEFORE was done and I wasn't going to bother with discussing it at the talk page simply because perhaps a dozen of similar articles have been deleted in the last couple of weeks. I did mention it at List of people who disappeared mysteriously, which is the meeting point of all such articles. This one is no different from the others: occasional appeals relating to cases do occur but that doesn't make them notable. Go create Wikimissingpersons to complement the failed Wikinews, perhaps? - Sitush (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is, for example, lasting coverage of many minor council officials but they are not considered notable. - Sitush (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given Nigeria is such a large country, the fact this particular case has attracted such attention suggests it is not a routine missing-persons case. The coverage seems to go beyond what would be normally expected. AusLondonder (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. It just demonstrates the power of Facebook, which is not reliable anyway and merely leads to ridiculous speculation and conspiracy theories. - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush; Seriously? While some of the sources used for this crime-related article come from Facebook; most of them come from multiple reliable sources which actually complement the sources from Facebook. Another thing I have observed until now: While anyone is free to contribute to this AFD discussion, I've observed that you've always seen something wrong with other contributors' input. Countering every contributor in this AFD discussion simply because they didn't vote in your favour is really wierd. I am not the sole determinant of the outcome of this AFD discussion but simply because previous AFD's have always closed in your favour doesn't necessarily mean this one will follow the same trend. There's always a first time. -Eruditescholar (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are misunderstanding me. The story was driven by Facebook, a bit like Twitterstorms get reported in mainstream media. - Sitush (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):Comment I agree Facebook is not a reliable source, I'm talking about the coverage in newspapers. Some of that coverage included reporting on a petition from 63 civil society organisations to the police about their handling of the case. The involvement of those organisations suggests it is different to a routine occurrence. The Disappearance of Corrie McKeague is a similar case where Facebook campaigning has been heavily involved; that does not negate the notability of the disappearance. AusLondonder (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG. Lasting long-term coverage - also in 2017 - e.g. [17] [18] [19].Icewhiz (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am going to give up here. It is obvious to me that Wikipedia is becoming a news website driven by the same social media agendas as tabloid newspapers. To be expected, I suppose: tabloids cater for the lowest-common denominator and, boy, is Wikipedia low. - Sitush (talk) 15:55, 17 October 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 (G5), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ren Yifan. MER-C 12:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Toi Lam[edit]

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

While he is the co-founder of Hong Kong listed companies, I believe he fails individual notability as per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. If the company is notable, this certainly does not mean it's necessarily inherited to the founder as per WP:INHERIT. While there is mention of him, all sources given are business listings or routine company publications which mention him in his role. I have not been able to find editorial or profile articles that focus on the individual. Another point to note is the absence of WP article in the "native" language project. While this is not a strong argument for this discussion, I take this as reference point for an English article. Therefore, I make the case for deletion given a lack of notability. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 15:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the March 2016 Istanbul bombing[edit]

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

Clearly a QUOTEFARM which should be selectively merge on the main article. Fails WP:GNG. See, concurrent discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2016 Lahore suicide bombing (2nd nomination). Greenbörg (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very selective merge to main is also possible. No need to list all ROUTINE sympathy reactions.Icewhiz (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Icewhiz's !vote above. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was going to get around to this article sooner or later; I'm glad someone else did anyways. I will echo the rationale I've chosen from similar articles I've nominated: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and WP:GNG cannot be applied to individual quotes of sympathy that weren't considered essential to the actual article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:22, 11 October 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 per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 19:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Sharif (cosmologist)[edit]

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

Tamgha-e-Imtiaz is fourth in level so certainly not enough. No widespread coverage for his achievements. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:PROF on multiple criteria. Highly cited (#C1), elected fellow of the Pakistan Academy of Sciences (#C3), distinguished professor (#C5). – Joe (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joe. Mar4d (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm dubious of the "highly cited" claim — for theoretical physics, on the international stage, these are not particularly impressive citation counts. But the distinguished professor title does it. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Joe. Only 178 people in the Pakistan Academy of Sciences. Galobtter (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think keep to this article.Pakistani Wikipedian (talk)
Keep per Joe above. Being among select few in Learned Academy clearly guarantees WP:GNG and those listed by Joe above. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zulfiqar Ahmad[edit]

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

No achievement yet. No widespread coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability for WP:Prof or elsewhere. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:PROF the subject is a student currently doing his PHD.Could not find anything to meet the General notability guideline either fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:47, 16 October 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. A single source is not sufficient to satisfy notability, and the other keep !vote isn't addressing the notability concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bashir Syed[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMICS. Better for CV but not for WP. Greenbörg (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Factoring out other people with similar names, I only found single-digit citations for his works in Google Scholar. Does not pass WP:PROF, and no other notability evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also couldn't find anything that would pass WP:PROF or the WP:GNG. – Joe (talk) 09:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears notable enough in the area of Pakistani science and tech, see this 2005 Dawn article for example. Mar4d (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SINGLESOURCE is not enough for passing WP:GNG. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously this article needs quite a bit of re-organizing for it's improvement, but I'm not sure if deletion is applicable at this point.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Week delete while there is at least one article discussing the subject but I don't think this is enough to demonstrate the notablity of the subject. --Saqib (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the subject's h-index is clearly low for WP:PROF and could not find adequate coverage to meet general notability guideline either fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:28, 16 October 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) 00:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chetan k pandya[edit]

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

Run of the mill lawyer. None of the sources even approach significant coverage of the lawyer himself, and nothing more was found in a search. The 'specializations in' bit makes it cler that this article is intended as a promo piece. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 12:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for lawyers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 01:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  14:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources provided are a mix of firm listings and blogs, plus a court listing which provides basic verification of a man going about his business. Nothing provided or found through my searches indicates encyclopaedic notability of the subject. AllyD (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's rationale. Alexius08 (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Hodian[edit]

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

Subject is not sufficiently notable Legacypac (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 01:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  14:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of drug interactions[edit]

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

Delete. Extremely limited list. For it to be of any use, it would have to be unmanageably long. If someone is looking for drug interactions, they can look up a specific drug. It duplicates information from each articles' page and not in a format that would ever be useful. Natureium (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only possible use I can think of is if the article was scrapped and List of drug interactions instead gave a list of different types of drug interactions. Natureium (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as duplication of the drug articles' interactions sections. For types of interactions, we have Drug interaction. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best incubate. The list/bracket format isn't suited for detailing drug interactions. As is stands it's almost meaningless to anybody who hasn't read more about the specific drug to find out how exactly the interaction works. And the article hasn't seen much improvement over the years. Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Theoretically, there are nearly infinite drug-interactions (for example, every sedative interacts pharmacodynamically with every other medication that causes sedation, all serotonergics interact with each other, etc--and that's not even accounting for all intra-class interactions, let alone drug-disease state interactions (contraindications), all pharmacokinetic interactions--you get the point). Attempting to list them all is like counting sand. There's a reason that massive databases like Lexicomp exist, and WP is not Lexicomp. Furthermore, information like "potentiates" isn't even useful; drug-interactions exist on a spectrum of clinical significance, ranging from theoretical and clinically irrelevant to potentially lethal combinations.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 02:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liaqat Ali Khan (mathematician)[edit]

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

Its more like a CV than a biography of encyclopedic nature. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMICS. Greenbörg (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 368 citations seems too low to pass WP:PROF#C1 in any field, and I haven't turned up any significant awards or the like which would count towards the other criteria. XOR'easter (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per scholar and book citations, and the numerous publications by the subject. Given that the internet did not exist some decades back, online coverage is not the only medium which needs to be relied upon. Mar4d (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, familiarize yourself with WP:GNG and WP:V because no article can pass GNG with namecheck or single source discussing him. Greenbörg (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete h-index is clearly low for WP:PROF particularly WP:PROF#C1 and and could not find adequate coverage to meet general notability guideline and fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation counts from his Google Scholar profile are too low to pass WP:PROF#C1, although mathematics in general is a low-citation field. Campus-level awards are insufficient for #C2. And beyond those two criteria, there seems nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Loel Guinness[edit]

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

Purely procedural.Per ticket:2017101010005881.Subject requires deletion.he would like to have a quit private life.......he no longer wants any information circulated on the Internet about him, he wants to live this retreat in anonymity......would like to be outside of all news.Editors are decided to judge the merits of the article and decide whether he is notable enough to sustain an article.Also, see WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 13:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has a number of famous/notable ~~descendants~~ ancestors but notability is not inherited. There are a few passing mentions of his philanthropy, but no indepth coverage. I can't see how he passes WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't (AFAIK) have any descendants? Are you thinking of the right person here?

WP:N might not be inherited, but money is. Being a rich member of the Guinness clan does place one within a milieu where notability is very easily acquired.

The question here is whether WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE should be followed, as requested, or not. Is a member of the Guinness family WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE?

I am puzzled by your content removals so far. You have removed material that is accurate and not derogatory (if we keep the article, we should keep it), yet left the specific piece of content that is complained of and only based on two poor quality sources. If anything goes, that should go first. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed details of his sister's husbands, I don't see how they have any relevance whatsoever to the article. Theroadislong (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Niarchos is supposed to have been a close friend and influence on his own philanthropy Andy Dingley (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add back with any sources that mention it, the article is VERY poorly sourced at the moment. Theroadislong (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And yet you're keeping the most problematic part of it? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is sourced, unlike virtually everything else! Theroadislong (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find much apart from this. [20]. Domdeparis (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - his mother was a "fashion icon" (unreferenced), he has ancestors, neither of these is enough for notability. There's no reason to keep him around as a punching bag. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited. Maproom (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all of the above.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when half the article is telling us who his various relatives were, we have no reason to think the person himself is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murat Arslan[edit]

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

No significant coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources. Sole claim to notability appears to be cheating an online poll in 1998. – Joe (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google News gives sources that can be used to expand the article. This person meets WP:NBIO. See below. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 01:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GeoffreyT2000: Could you be more specific? All the GNews results I am seeing are about a different Murat Arslan; a judge. – Joe (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because this person is a different one from the politician in the Google News, per what the nominator said above. The computer person is the one that does not appear in reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 23:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The article can be recreated to be about the judge or politician after this AfD for the specialist gets closed. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 23:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable computer engineer. The judge may be notable, but rewriting the existing article to be about him is not the right way forward.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 19:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transaviabaltika[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Little evidence from article or source search of notability per WP:GNG i.e. significant coverage in reliable sources. DrStrauss talk 10:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage, and the single reference is not independent. The reference webpage is just a single image. David.moreno72 12:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as by WP:V on this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this. SwisterTwister talk 15:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale for deletion isn't on grounds of verifiability, it's on grounds of notability, specifically, significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. DrStrauss talk 18:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've inserted sources from Estonia's publically-funded television and radio studio, complete with pictures, to show that Transaviabaltika has been operating in Estonia since 2016, and is contracted to do so until 2019. Axeman89 (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have always considered all scheduled passenger airlines notable. WP is very inclusive about transportation. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- airlines with scheduled services are generally kept, even if small / regional. There's some opportunity for expansion, such as:

Lithuanian carrier Transaviabaltika submitted the winning tender in a procurement announced by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications last year for the operation of subsidized flights between the Estonian mainland and the capitals of its two largest Western islands. Transaviabaltika's contract was signed through May 31, 2019. source.

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article clearly needs to be improved, but there seem to be enough sources to justify its inclusion. This book may also be useful [21].--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:15, 17 October 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 criterion WP:G5. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ren Yifan. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tse Kam Pang[edit]

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

While he is the CEO and founder of a Hong Kong listed company, I believe he fails individual notability as per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. If the company is notable, this certainly does not mean it's necessarily inherited to the founder as per WP:INHERIT. While there is mention of him, all sources given are business listings or routine company publications which mention him in his role. I have not been able to find editorial or profile articles that focus on the individual. Another point to note is the absence of WP article in the "native" language project. While this is not a strong argument for this discussion, I take this as reference point for an English article. Therefore, I make the case for deletion given a lack of notability. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete The creator has been confirmed a sockpuppet: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ren Yifan. Most of the articles he created should be speedily deleted. Timmyshin (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator's comments, as with all businessperson bios, association with a notable entity or mere mention in routine business directories is not sufficient to establish notability. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 19:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UTStarcom[edit]

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

A lot of the article is advertisement-y. Probably does not meet WP:CORP - around half the few sources are from the company's webpage. Nerd1a4i (talk) 00:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Sull, Donald N.; Wang, Yong (2005). Made In China: What Western Managers Can Learn from Trailblazing Chinese Entrepreneurs. Boston: Harvard Business Publishing. pp. 166–187. ISBN 1422163385. Retrieved 2017-10-11.
  The book notes on page 12:
  UTStarcom. Founded in 1995 through the merger of two telecommunications start-ups headquarted in the United States but focused on the Chinese market, UTStarcom has grown its revenues from $10 million in 1995 to $2 billion in 2003, a performance that landed UTStarcom a place on the 2003 Fortune 1000. UTStarcom achieved its rapid growth by developing and selling its "Personal Access System," which enables cordless phones to rove up to 60 miles within a city limit. At the end of 2003, UTStarcom's equipment served over 20 million customers in China, and the company exported telecommunications equipment to emerging markets such as India and to developed countries, including Japan and the United States. The company, which employs approximately 5,000, trades on the NASDAQ exchange and had a market capitalization exceeding $4 billion in September 2004.
  The book further notes on page 168:
  The Foundation of UTStarcom
  
  UTStarcom traces its routes back not to one entrepreneur, but to two—Hong Lu and Ying Wu, who independently founded the two companies that would later merge to become UTStarcom.
  The book further notes on pages 184–185:
  Although some constraints, such as cash management, are common across companies, others are company specific and often surprising. When UTStarcom started winning contracts from local operators in the late 1990s, for example, managmenet realized that the high price of Japanese-made handsets—which UTStarcom bought and resold at cost for $215—would dampen end-user demand for PAS systems. If end users couldn't afford the handsets, local telecommunications bureaus would not buy UTStarcom's equipment and the game would be over before it really began. UTStarcom initially tried outsourcing production to a Taiwanese company, but the contract manufacturers could only cut costs by 50 percent. Reluctantly, UTStarcom executives decided to design and manufacture the handsets themselves in China to bring costs below the $55 to $60 price point they felt was required to ensure widespread consumer adoption. UTStarcom's continued growth also depended on continued support (or, at minimum, tolerance) of PAS from the Ministry of Information Industry. Managing this constraint required UTStarcom to devote more attention to lobbying than would be typical for many start-ups.
  The company is profiled in detail on pages 166–187.
2. Lee, Ellen (2005-09-18). "Utstarcom Eyes Market for Expansion - Alameda-Based Firm Loses Momentum in the Telecommunications Industry After Explosive Growth in Chinese Market". Contra Costa Times. Archived from the original on 2017-10-11. Retrieved 2017-10-11.
  The article notes:
  
  If UTStarcom Inc.'s saga were described with popular catchphrases, it'd go something like this: At the right place at the right time. All good things must come to an end. Been there, done that. Now what?
  During the late 1990s, the Alameda-based telecommunications equipment maker found an overlooked opportunity in China's emerging telecommunications market: China didn't have the infrastructure to offer reliable landline telephone calls, nor could it depend on cell phones, which were too expensive.
  Then came UTStarcom, which offered a hybrid: a telephone that acted like a mobile phone and looked like a mobile phone, but was based off of traditional landlines and only operated within city limits. UTStarcom sold the technology, called the Personal Access System, or PAS, to two of China's major carriers, China Netcom and China Telecom, and now has 47.5 million of China's 82.8 million PAS subscribers.
  The bet paid off: Named one of the nations' fastest-growing businesses by Business Week, Forbes and others, it saw its revenues more than double from $981.8 million in 2002 to nearly $2 billion in 2003.
3. Grady, Barbara (2006-06-22). "Wireless player's revenue declines UTStarcom posts loss". Bay Area News Group. Archived from the original on 2017-10-11. Retrieved 2017-10-11.
  The article notes:
  
  UTStarcom Inc., the Alameda-based manufacturer of wireless telecommunications gear, posted a big drop in revenues for the first quarter of the year and a net loss — but the loss was not nearly as bad as the troubled company expected.
  UTStarcom has been in the midst of a major turnaround, both in operations and in products, after a year in which government agencies investigated its finances and customers seemed less interested in its major product.
  On Wednesday, UTStarcom reported first-quarter revenue of $596.6 million, down more than a third from $901.9 million in the same quarter last year, when it posted a profit.
  But the quarter’s net loss of 9 cents a share, or $10.6 million, was not nearly as bad as the 65 cents a share loss the company had warned Wall Street analysts was likely. Its cash flow was stronger than it has been and its profit margins higher.
4. Heim, Kristi (2004-05-11). "Wireless Wonder - Alameda Company Finds Mobile Gold Mine in China". The Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2017-10-11. Retrieved 2017-10-11.
  The article notes:
  
  Street sweepers and grandmothers in China are helping a Bay Area telecom company strike it rich.
  UTStarcom has prospered by selling a low-cost mobile phone system to meet the needs of common people in China. And it has succeeded by blending Silicon Valley smarts, management and money with China's manufacturing ability and insatiable appetite for phone services.
  The idea behind UTStarcom started when Hong Lu, UTStarcom's chief executive, visited China in 1990 and had to dial 100 times to complete a call from Beijing to Shenzhen. He knew the country's decrepit phone system needed an upgrade.
  Lu started a company and initially focused on selling fixed-wire equipment but soon found a better option. Reviving a Japanese technology that was all but abandoned, Lu offered a way for Chinese phone companies to make the leap into wireless.
  The article also notes:
  box) When founded: 1991 as Unitech Telecom, which merged with Starcom Networks in 1995 to form UTStarcom.
  (box) Headquarters: Alameda
  (box) IPO: March 2000
  (box) Employees: 5,500 worldwide, including 4,600 in China and 500 in the United States
  (box) CEO: Hong Lu, 49
  (box) 2003 profit: $202 million, up 87 percent from 2002
  (box) 2003 sales: $1.96 billion, up 100 percent from 2002
5. Barboza, David (2010-01-01). "Telecom Company to Pay $3 Million in China Bribe Case". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2017-10-11. Retrieved 2017-10-11.
  The article notes:
  
  For UTStarcom, which is based in Alameda, Calif., China is a crucial market. One of the company’s founders is a Chinese-born American, and most of the company’s operations and employees are based in China.
  UTStarcom, which sells networking and broadband equipment, has for the last decade sold large quantities of goods to three of China’s biggest government-owned telecommunications companies: China Netcom, China Telecom and China Mobile.
  S.E.C. officials said employees from many of the company’s big Chinese clients accepted bribes.
  ...
  The settlement comes at a difficult time for UTStarcom. The company is suffering through a sharp downturn in sales. It lost over $185 million in the first three quarters of 2008 and recently sold one of its plants in China.
6. Malik, Om; Copeland, Michael V. (2003-10-01). "B2 100 The Fastest-Growing Technology Companies In our annual ranking of tech's supercharged, a company most people never heard of grabbed the No. 1 slot with a not-so-simple feat: It made a fortune in China". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2017-10-11. Retrieved 2017-10-11.
  The article notes:
  
  With its corporate headquarters in Alameda, Calif., Lu's company, UTStarcom, made a long-term bet on China, building most of its equipment there. That helped it win goodwill--and its products, which were cheap, smart, and engineered with Chinese users in mind, won customers. The firm has made $2 billion in China since 2000 and now employs 4,700 workers worldwide.
  And by all accounts, the company is just getting started. Its contrarian formula is easily exportable: Set up shop in-country, partner with the biggest phone company, and above all, make supercheap products that are minutely customized to local needs. Indeed, Lu is using the same business model in India, Indonesia, and Vietnam.
  It's that kind of thinking--taking calculated risks, going where the opportunities are, thinking about what the market really wants--that took UTStarcom to the top of Business 2.0's annual ranking of the fastest-growing tech companies. Its net income has grown 72 percent annually since 2000; this year alone the firm is expected to report $190 million in net profit on $1.8 billion in revenue. Don't think Wall Street hasn't noticed: UTStarcom's stock is up 112 percent so far this year--four times as much as the average stock on the rocketing Nasdaq--to $42.81 near the end of August.
7. Hutheesing, Nikhil (2005-06-29). "UTStarcom Grasps For New Growth". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2017-10-11. Retrieved 2017-10-11.
  The article notes:
  
  Shares of UTStarcom continue to slide, and the stock now trades in the low $7 range–close to its 52-week low. The news for this once high-flying company, which provides telecom equipment mostly to service providers in China, has been dismal lately.
  ...
  While it will take a while for this company to win back investor confidence, it’s important to realize that the bad news is not a death sentence for the technology. PAS remains a low-cost alternative that allows people to use their cordless phones at home and then take them with them no matter where they go within city limits–and still make and receive phone calls. It’s a big business for China’s service providers.
  UTStarcom’s PAS business will still account for about $1 billion in sales this year, and probably next year, and I wouldn’t be surprised if at some point–maybe a year or two from now–demand from the service providers will pick up again for PAS products.
8. Hutheesing, Nikhil (2003-09-23). "Will UTStarcom Get Shanghaied?". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2017-10-11. Retrieved 2017-10-11.
  The article notes:
  
  Though UTStarcom is based in the U.S., it is actually a wireless play on the fast-growing market for mobile phones in China. Founded in 1991, this provider of telecom infrastructure, software and handsets operates in a fast-growing market–China. The company does most of its business out of its offices in Beijing. UTSI has three joint ventures that include two manufacturing operations that it owns jointly with the Telecommunications Administrations in Guangdong and Zhejiang provinces. It also operates 12 customer support and sales centers around China.
  The company is run by two executives that are highly regarded internationally. Its chief executive, Hong Liang Lu Hong Liang Lu , was once the CEO of Kyocera Unison , a subsidiary of Kyocera International . Its vice chairman, Ying Wu Ying Wu , was once a member of the technical staff of Bellcore (now Telcordia ) and was a consultant to AT&T Bell Labs, now part of Lucent Technologies.
  UTStarcom offers the Chinese an affordable mobile service in nearly 300 cities, from Hangzhou to Xian. In China the prevailing wireless system is known as PAS, for Personal Access System. UTSI’s version of PAS dominates the market with a 60% share. UTSI’s clients include hundreds of small telephone providers in China, who in turn provide service for roughly 5 million people. Lucent Technologies and the Shenzhen, Guangdong-based Zhongxing Telecom sell their own PAS systems. They account for the remaining 40% of the market. At UTStarcom, sales of PAS equipment, service and handsets account for about 85% of its revenue.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow UTStarcom to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article needs cleanup, but with >500 employees, >$100 million in revenue, and the coverage above, it clearly is sufficiently notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are more than sufficient sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability - see Cunard list above. Passes WP:NCORP and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Cunard has found enough sources to justfy keeping. I am only saying weak because it will be necessary to use these sources to improve thearticle, and I doubt this will be done by anyone. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 14 October 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. A Train^talk 07:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Ralph[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Despite what superficially looks like a lot of sources, none of them are actually sufficient for WP:GNG - they are all either not independent or not significant, as detailed more fully in the previous AfD (which was no consensus). In the interests of full disclosure I will link the two more recent links I have found: this from "ABC Open", which is clearly not part of the ABC's editorial news coverage, and this which mentions that he was commemorated in parliament, which is nice but not unusual for local, non-notable community leaders. Frickeg (talk) 07:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Frickeg (talk) 07:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both the article and the references read like eulogies, which isn't disqualifying by itself, but here they are indicative that most of the sources lack Independence of the subject. No significant coverage in independent sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Waiting for more participation to analyze depth of sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 01:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Seems to fail POL and AUTHOR. Sources do not establish GNG, and a BEFORE does not find much more. He might pass with a bit mpre high quality sources, but not at current level.Icewhiz (talk) 21:34, 15 October 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. A Train^talk 07:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Mathis[edit]

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

Mathis' only notice has been winning Miss Georgia. This is not enough to show notability. The sources here and other sources are all just local sources reporting on this at the time, not enough to create actual notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this person clearly meets the WP:GNG for significant coverage. Coverage is not "just local", as suggested in the intro above, but includes many distinguished newspapers and TV stations across several states. The claim "just local" is strongly misleading as one would think that the person was only covered in the local press around her place of residence and nothing is further from the truth. It is a good and important practice not to demean WP:BLPs. Kudos to User:Geo Swan for improving the referencing after this nomination! gidonb (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The coverage all comes from Georgia, it is by no means nation, and it is not long-lasting. It is no more than we expect from any other beauty queen, and in no way shows the subject is at all notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yet another ridiculous claim! WAVE (TV) is from Kentucky, WIS in from South Carolina, WXIX-TV is from Ohio. Kentucky and Ohio do not even border Georgia (US state). None of your statements hold any water! gidonb (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - It may be run in Kentucky, but if we look at the article, it has a Georgia by-line, and is about county comissioners passing a fluff resolution, this is all fluff, no substance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Adequate indicia of notability beyond being a beauty queen. "Just local" comment doesn't cut it, GNG can be met by a figure of statewide notability if significant and third-party. Article has been expanded and improved, GNG met. Montanabw^(talk) 07:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw, excellent point! Coverage is not only across many states, but also throughout Georgia, a state with more than 10 million residents... gidonb (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are still all passing mentions, not the type of quality coverage that shows actual notability. Lots of passing mention does not show someone is notable. We need more, and better coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How are these passing mentions if the articles are about Mathis? Your ridiculous claims here and elsewhere prove that you should not be part of any AfDs because all you do is mislead people, have articles on women removed, and replace these by articles on obscure Mormons worldwide. gidonb (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The WIS article os not in any way about Mathis, it is about the beauty pageant itself. The WAVE article is about a fluff action by a county comission, not the type of article that adds towards GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The WXIX from Ohio is also in no way a substantial coverage of Mathis. It is actually the same article that ran in South Carolina, word for word. It is about the pageant, not in any way, shape, means or form about Mathis. Name dropping is not the stuff of passing GNG. The previous keep votes have significantly misrepresented the non-coverage involved here, and totally misconstrued GNG. The discussion on beauty pageant articles agreed they either need significant, indepdent, multi-state coverage of the subject, not just name dropping of the win itself, or sustained coverage for points unrelated to the beauty pageant itself. Neither of these are met by what amounts to name dropping articles that are repeated by stations in multiple locations without saying anything substantial about Mathis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability or significance outside of the pageant career, and that alone has been established at AfD to not be sufficient to keep an article. Per prior outcomes, such articles are routinely deleted. Nothing stands out about this subject; the article consists mostly of trivia, as in:

"Mathis’ platform is “Heart Health and Heart Safety” and she said she hoped to work with the American Heart Association..." etc.

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep covered in multiple reliable sources. Georgia is not a small region. Antrocent (♫♬) 07:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:08, 10 October 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. A Train^talk 07:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetman (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Ordinary, orphan WP:2DABS page. Disambiguation is not required: primary topic has a hatnote to the other use. De-PRODed by Patar knight. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 09:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 09:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The hatnote in the primary topic makes this useless. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No longer 2DABs, and it makes no sense to stick the list of people with this surname under an article primarily about an Irish family when many of those who have the surname are prominent in other countries. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly the Sweetman article is almost entirely unsourced, and the one source is to a primary document. If you cut down everything besides the lede, it might be better to just merge the two pages together. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The other entry is an incredibly minor partial title match that directs to a single passing mention in a huge list. The unincorporated community can be housed in a hatnote. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sweetman's Lane is the mention in a list - another part of it is part of County Route 527 (New Jersey) - but it's a partial match and is the road through the community. The community can be linked in the hatnote in place of the disambiguation page. Peter James (talk) 21:10, 14 October 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. Soft deletion functionally equivalent to an uncontested PROD Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kamui (video game)[edit]

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

Sources are lacking outside of a few announcement articles. Did not get significant secondary coverage to pass WP:GNG. Sources in article are mainly WP:PRIMARY. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 11:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 11:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Directus[edit]

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

Non-notable software system excluded from Wikipedia by failing both parts of the test of WP:N: it is written is current marketing speak for software and created wholesale by an apparent SPA, making it excluded by WP:NOTSPAM. It also fails to gain significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are intellectually independent of the subject, making it fail the general notability guideline. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 09:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. Alexius08 (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. gongshow talk 08:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sachiko Watanabe[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN - local politician with little coverage in independent, reliable sources. DrStrauss talk 13:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, there is a ja.wiki article with a few sources. And it looks like they were tapped for a national taskforce related to wasteful public spending. She was apparently the keynote speaker and... some... sort of academic conference. It's really hard to say definitively without someone who can weigh in on the non-English sources. But it is easy to suspect that the reason we have a substantial article on the mayor of Chattanooga and not on the mayor of Tama, is because there are more people around who speak Tennessee than speak Japanese. GMG ^talk 14:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better. I can't read Japanese, so I can't speak to whether the Japanese sources on the ja wiki are reliable or substantive — I can only evaluate this on the basis of what's present in the English version. But once I stripped the inappropriate bulletlist of unsourced quotations and the pointless comment on how her first and last names are so common that her name is basically the Japanese equivalent of "John Smith", all that was left is "she exists". And the only reference cited at all is a single article in a university student publication about her speaking at a conference. The difference between this and Andy Berke isn't that more people here speak Tennessee than Japanese; it's that Andy Berke's article actually contains substance and reliable sources, neither of which are present here. And since AFD does not represent a permanent ban on the subject ever having an article at all, deletion of this inadequate version does not prevent somebody from trying again if they can do better. She'd surely be kept if somebody who can read Japanese could write and source a halfway decent article — but there's no need to keep a stub that's this unsubstantive and this poorly sourced. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is clear that the subject was/is the Mayor of Tama, Tokyo, with a population of 140,000+. The Japanese Wiki site has several links to articles about the subject in the Tama New Town Times and a link to a Geocities site which appears to have election results from 2002. There is also this article in Stars and Stripes (newspaper) referring to the subject as the Mayor. That all said, while I expect that the subject is notable, I am not quite confident that the existing sourcing is sufficient for a local politician (see WP:POLOUTCOMES). Perhaps the article should be tagged with WP:AFI --Enos733 (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could use a few more Japanese readers to weigh in on sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 08:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mayors at this level are not notable without a lot more sources than exist in this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 17 October 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. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newton Running[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 08:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 09:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion for lack of notability. Alexius08 (talk) 00:03, 11 October 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SeaRise Office Tower[edit]

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

Non-notable office building, one of a whole pile of such by the same editor. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/501 7th Avenue for example. DMacks (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, quite a nicely constructed article, although the missing "history" from the building's 1976 construction to 2007 and then another gap until 2016 is a bit of a worry, but how is it notable to warrant an article, ie. any architecture/construction awards? is it historically significant? at the moment it exists and thats about it. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [22] says that the price paid per square foot was a record at the time. I'm not yet sure about the size, it mentions 128,000 sq ft, but is that the sq ft per floor? From the pictures, there appear to be about seven floors.
But...there is a company listed on the NYSE that is documented here, and we don't have an article on that company. Unscintillating (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an advertorially toned page on an unremarkable office building, including the lead sentence that advertises it as:

"...a premier Class A office building ..."

The rest of the content is routine corporate developments, no encyclopedic value here. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I'm thinking it might pass GEOFEAT, can I have 16 hours to look into this and tidy up the article? ThanksL3X1 (distænt write) 03:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reason this is notable, a mundane office building. No significant coverage in third-party reliable sources to satisfy "historic, social, economic, or architectural importance" criterea of WP:GEOFEAT.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per others, my searches did not find enough material. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet NG at all. (+Wikipedia is not a places directory) --QEDK (愛 • 海) 17:55, 17 October 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 08:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomiki Konst[edit]

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

This page should be deleted for the simple reason that she is not notable enough. There are two reliable sources in this article: two Arizona Daily Star articles about her announcement that she would run in the Democratic primary for a 2012 congressional seat as a recent University of Arizona graduate. If two 5-yr old articles is all there is, then she's not notable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are 7 sources in the article, Aside from her 2012 candidacy, Konst is with The Young Turks, is regularly in the media and is part of the DNC unity commission. Plenty notable. Mo2010 (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are the sources in the article: (i) A tweet, (ii) A website called "Zonie.com", (iii) a Youtube video from the crackpots at the Young Turks, (iv) the two Arizona Daily Star articles that I mentioned, (v) a Hill article that you just added (this Hill article mentions Konst once and it's in a list of people), and (vi) a government website listing Konst as one of the primary candidates in the 2012 election. If this individual is notable, you sure as hell can't tell it from the sourcing. The page looks like it was written by Konst to promote herself. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"a Youtube video from the crackpots at the Young Turks" I see this is political more than an actual concern about sourcing. You not agreeing with The Young Turks is not a legitimate reason to delete this article. Mo2010 (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I provided a different reason for deleting this article. I wouldn't call for the deletion of Jimmy Dore's or Cenk Uygur's pages because they are actually notable and have some RS coverage. Konst doesn't and this page is in violation of Wiki policy. Konst being willing to slap together her own Wikipedia page, doesn't mean she gets one. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added additional sourcing including from The Washington Post and Mediaite that cover her and for the record I am the one that originally created this page.Mo2010 (talk) 5:29 , 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The following sources have been added to the article: (i) a link to the website of a show she used to host, (ii) a story by the 'National Herald', which I've never heard of before but which describes itself as the "only daily Greek language publication in North America", (iii) a self-published Forbes op-ed, (iv) a brief Mediaite piece that mentions her once, and (v) a WaPo piece that actually covers her at length but only as a way to show how Sanders supporters responded to his loss in the Democratic primary. It's a narrative piece that takes one individual and looks at how he/she reacted to something (similar to stories of how Trump supporter X reacted to Trump action Y). The WaPo piece does not cover her as a notable individual who has accomplished things. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First the Forbes Op-ed is an interview piece not self published that covers her as an notable individual who has accomplished things. The Mediaite piece is about her and what happened to her at a protest she was covering in New York City. The WoPo piece partly covered her work to negotiate a trues between Bernie supporters and the Clinton campaign. She has more notable sources than Emma Vigeland, John Iadarola, Jacob Soboroff and others who are all similar to her but she is not notable enough for you despite having 12 independent sources. If they are notable than she is notable. Mo2010 (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those pages should also be deleted. Thanks for pointing them out. I'll take the appropriate action. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I can't. It might skirt a ban that the admins custom-made for me. I therefore encourage others reading this to request the deletion of those pages. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are banned from deleting those pages you should be banned from deleting this one. Mo2010 (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that she helped write the DNC platform, is on the DNC reform commission, she appears on Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and others. When Keith Ellison was accused of being an Anti Semite when running for DNC Chair....who did MSNBC ask to come on? Nomiki Konst. When Vox was reporting on Kamala Harris 2020 prospects, who did they ask for comment? Nomiki. When Time Magizine was reporting on 2020 prospects, who did they ask? Nomiki. When Newsweek was reporting on 2020 prospects who did they ask for comment? Nomiki. I can go on and on if you want, I can go and catalouge every notable act she has done for the last couple of years and believe me, it will blow her current page out of the water

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We do not have 12 independent sources here, as the creator claims. Right off the bat, four sources are not independent of her: #1 is her own primary source profile on the website of her agent; #2 is her own Twitter; #3 is a press release from a company she's worked for; #11 is content distributed by the show she works for. That's four primary sources that cannot assist notability at all, already. Then there are four more sources that cannot assist notability at all for different reasons: Mediaite is not a reliable source at all; the Arizona Secretary of State is a type of WP:ROUTINE source that every candidate in any election could always show regardless of their notability or lack thereof, because there's always an "all of the registered candidates" directory on the website of the relevant elections authority; one just namechecks her existence a single time in an article that isn't about her; and Q&A interviews can be used as supplementary sourcing for stray facts after notability has already been covered off, but cannot be bringers of notability as such because they represent the subject talking about herself.
Which leaves us assessing four GNG-eligible sources, not 12: but of those four, two exist solely in the context of her candidacy for an election that she didn't win, one exists solely in the context of her having been a delegate to the presidential primaries, and one exists solely in the context of her being ethnically Greek. But being a non-winning candidate in an election is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia — she has to win the election, not just run in it, to be considered notable as a politician — and showing two sources about her candidacy doesn't make it special, because every candidate in any election could always show two sources about that. Being a primary delegate is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself, and being Greek is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself.
As for being notable as a broadcaster, no reliable source coverage about that work has been shown at all — broadcasters have to be the subject of coverage in media outlets other than their own employer to qualify for Wikipedia articles, not just to be nominally verifiable in their employer's own self-published content. So, for all of those reasons, nothing here properly demonstrates that she qualifies for an article either as a broadcaster or as a politician. Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete candidates for congress are not notable for that, and her other actions do not rise to the level of being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a politically motivated action, https://twitter.com/bravenak/status/920148228506402817

There is a group of Hillary Clinton supporters on Twitter right now, laughing it up, acting as if "Wikipedia" is deleting this page bcos she isn't "Notable" enough. This is not true, this is not even how it works. I'm not sure who started this move to delete her page, but my guess is that they are also part of this same group.

Currently twitter users @UnseatBernie and @Bravenak are encouraging people to come here and state that all we really care about is sources.....and integrity of wikipedia....and yadah yah.

This is low, please don't fall for this nonsense, these are the same people trying to get her kicked off the DNC Reform Commission, get her kicked off TYT, get her kicked out of Womens Convention, etc, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shandunt (talk • contribs) 07:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate though that may be, we do not keep Wikipedia articles just to help the subject spite their opponents in a political dispute — we keep articles about people who can be properly sourced as passing a specific notability criterion. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- literally just do a basic google search and you will see that her name is mentioned across most of the mainstream press.....Nobody was advocating to create Nomiki's page out of spite - I was informing you that the exact opposite is happening. NOmiki's page was organically created a while ago without fuss....no one took issue with it UNTIL a bunch of clinton supporters started a campaign to erase her from as many sites as possible, including this one.

So what I am suggesting is to take with a grain of salt, many of the comments here, including mine, and compare Nomiki to her peers which also have pages on wikipedia which no one is contesting at the moment....look at how selective the concern is, is Marissa_Johnson really more notable than Nomiki Konst? Nomiki is a regular invited to give comment or appear on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, Time, The Blaze, Huffington Post. She is a reporter for TYT, an activist, a protester, Nomiki helped write the DNC Platform - SHE HELPED WRITE THE DNC PLATFORM, Nomiki is part of the DNC Reform commission, Nomiki is speaking at the womens convention, Nomiki has spoken at dozens of political events, she is regularly asked for comment by outlets like Vox, MIC, and many others. - literally just do a basic google search and you will see that her name is mentioned across most of the mainstream press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shandunt (talk • contribs) 01:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of, well, notability. she has participated in founding a number of minor organizations; she ran for a party nomination to a seat in Congress, which produced a little ROUTINE coverage; and there was a profile of her as a delegate to her party's national convention - all of which fails to support notability. she's youngish; perhaps it is merely WP:TOOSOON, although lots of people do good work in activist movements and as party activists for a lifetime; even going to every state and national Party convention as a Delegate for decades without every becoming notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BASIC as Konst has not "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Tweets and routine coverage related to a failed candidacy does not source a BLP. AusLondonder (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concur with most of the arguments about lack of independent secondary sources and lack of notability. It is possible that Ms. Konst may become suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia at a later date, but as matters stand now, I do not believe she meets the criteria for inclusion. Charlie GALVIN (talk) 17:36, 17 October 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 16:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scout’s Oath (film)[edit]

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

Article about a short film, whose only stated claim of notability per WP:NFILM is that it exists. That would be all the notability it required if the article were referenced to enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG -- but the only references here are its own self-published Kickstarter and the primary source website of a film festival where it screened. As always, every film does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- we need to see reliable source coverage about the film in media, not just primary-source verification that it exists. Bearcat (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it's a stub about a film short, that doesn't make the article less notable. I found the following sources:

Among others. --evrik ^(talk) 20:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, certainly short films aren't inherently less notable than feature films are, but feature films don't get an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist either — there are specific notability standards, spelled out at WP:NFILM, that a film has to meet to earn a Wikipedia article regardless of whether it's a feature or a short or a documentary or what. But none of those are sources that bolster notability at all: three of the five are just profiles on the program websites of film festivals that screened it, which are directly affiliated sources that cannot assist passage of WP:GNG, and both of the other two are blogs, which are never acceptable or reliable sources for anything. So no, none of those sources cut any mustard whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep-I could have sworn this article already existed. It could use a little more meat and more independent sourcing, but I must question the AFDing of an article two hours old, written by a Wiki veteran of a decade, without going through the time-honored notability/refimprove tagging first.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would have been nice to have been given more than two house to let the article grow. Here is another source:

"Lanzi settles suit against Boy Scouts". Santa Barbara News-Press. 2001-06-15. Retrieved 2017-09-25. --evrik ^(talk) 15:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We're not looking for coverage about the original lawsuit that the film was about — we're looking for coverage about the film as a film. That source would be perfectly fine for some verification of facts in the article, but it doesn't speak to the notability of the film at all, because it isn't about the film. And no, nobody owes you any particular amount of time to improve the article, either — you can always work on it in draft form, such as through WP:AFC or in your own user sandbox, but to be in articlespace today it has to already meet articlespace standards today. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough here to let the article mature and give it time to grow. --evrik ^(talk) 17:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't. The inclusion yardstick is measuring the sources, not the content, and there are no sources present here that are both reliable and about the film — every source is one of those things or the other, and none of them is both. Bearcat (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added categories and fixed a layout issue, and probably would have moved on had Bearcat not brought this to Afd, but I agree it fails WP:NFILM. For example, Gnews search for the film name + director's last name yields zero results, which is not a good sign. Perhaps a short referenced passage on the Lanzi dismissal could be added to Boy Scouts of America membership controversies#Position on homosexuality, which currently makes no mention of this? Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this means that there was really no support for the original proposal. In fact there are now ten references. Two from newspapers. --evrik ^(talk) 18:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The articles from newspapers are not about the film, but are both about the original lawsuit that the film happens to profile. As I already pointed out above, what we require is reliable source coverage about the film as a film — newspaper articles about the lawsuit, written 15 years before the film existed, do not assist in demonstrating the notability of the film. And exactly none of the sources that are about the film are reliable or notability-assisting ones at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Article_alerts#AfD. --evrik ^(talk) 15:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources about the film itself, rather than the film's subject matter. Meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a lack of indepth coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion about the sources please. Additionally, if the sources are all talking about a notable incident and not the film itself, is there scope to make an article about the incident and redirect the film title there?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for, above all, failing WP:GNG. The references are listings of where the film was shown or news stories about the events in the film, but not of the film itself. Perhaps the incidents are notable enough for an article creation - but that is not the debate here. Redirecting makes no sense if there's nothing to redirect too. Consensus appears very clear to delete. Ifnord (talk) 15:36, 18 October 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stockland Traralgon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. at the last AfD the keep !votes were hardly convincing. there is nothing to suggest this is more than a run of the mill shopping centre. LibStar (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my vote in the previous AfD. WP:GNG. Just another run of the mill shopping centre. Ajf773 (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep per the sources mentioned in the first nomination by LauraHale.--Snaevar (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD is going to keep going round and round in circles. If there are sources that establish notability, add them, if not don't bother keeping the articles. Ajf773 (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and I wouldn't count reports of assaults as adding to notability. LibStar (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A list of sources is provided at the first AfD. Further sources were identified at the "Morwell library and read up a lot about the opening in back issues of The Express newspaper." That may be the same offline newspaper mentioned in that AfD as "Latrobe Valley Express". Unscintillating (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As yet, still no sources have been added to the article to establish any sort notability. Ajf773 (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't defined by sources in the article. Unscintillating (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources verify notability (which is still questionable). Ajf773 (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability doesn't require online sources, they just have to be publicly available. Unscintillating (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the sources provided in the first AFD were not even verified. In fact only two of them are online sources and neither of which mention anything other than trivial mentions. Ajf773 (talk) 03:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your point is. What you are calling a "trivial mention", Laura Hale says, "The first mention puts the shopping mall as existing during the 1980s.." which is significant information she then uses to show that this was before the internet age.

Lot's of shopping malls existed in the 1980s. Not exactly a claim to fame. Ajf773 (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have already shown that you mispoke about what constitutes a trivial mention. I did this by comparing one of your statements with one of those by Laura Hale. Your explanation here is of the form that anything that is not a claim to fame is a trivial mention. The lede of WP:Notability states, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." And GNG discusses "trivial" without mentioning claims to fame. Unscintillating (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between listing the sources at the AfD and listing them in the article? If offline, they would be just as inaccessible, and equally verifiable. Some of those look like they should be available online. The citations themselves serve as evidence, which is formally what WP:N requires. You've got a testimony of reading sources at the Morwell library, "...I visited Morwell library and read up a lot about the opening in back issues of The Express newspaper." Unscintillating (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And? Just the fact that is mentioned in a citation makes it notable, somehow? Try harder. There is more to sources than trivial mentions. Ajf773 (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for evidence, the WP:N lede states, "We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention." Unscintillating (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note the emphasis on the word "consider". A bunch of sources doesn't mean jack unless it clearly demonstrates a notable claim which I fail to see. Ajf773 (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia doesn't use a "notable claim" as a metric...I've already quoted from the guideline on that point. We as a community figured out long ago that the opinions of individual editors could not be used as a metric. Unscintillating (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further discovery and evaluation of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 05:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run of the mill shopping mall ... a building isn't notable just because it has both a Coles and a Kmart in it. Appears to be routine coverage only. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 09:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cites identified as mentioned, just need to be actioned. Eonfm (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)'[reply]

— Eonfm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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. None of the editors arguing to delete addressed the academic citations uncovered by Piotrus. A Train^talk 07:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transracial (identity)[edit]

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

I've declined G4 on this as the content, and in particular the sources, are substantially different to the previously deleted version. However, given that an article on the same subject was deleted as the result of this discussion two years ago, I think it would be good to have a debate on this (relatively stub-ish) article. The sourcing has improved slightly in the meantime, with some academic texts addressing the topic, but I'm doubtful that it meets GNG as yet. GoldenRing (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is basically an article about two people, one of whom has a very well developed article about her (including this subject matter). Taking that and tacking on a reference to a Maury Povich Show guest does not a subject make. Fails WP:GNG outside of discussion of Dolezal, who has her own page. Until there's more academic support or popular usage of this term, it's WP:TOOSOON for this. Shelbystripes (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:TOOSOON. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term is used in academic studies, through we have to control for a separate concept, transrational adoption. Still, I see several sources that deal with identity and not adoption: see [23] and [24]. Now, while I've just skimmed the sources, and I don't preclude that a merge and redirect could be an option, I don't see such arguments. And while the current stub likely has undue weight given to two people, and should be expanded to discuss the theory of the concept more, it seems notable to me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ethnic identity development, the broader topic. As Piotrus mentioned, there is some, but not a lot, of academic development of the transracial identitiy concept in particular. But merging verifiable content into the broader Ethnic identity development topic in social psychology would place it in better context. --Mark viking (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ethnic identity development as an alternative to deletion; the subject is not yet independently notable per WP:NEO. Anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would support redirect as an alternative to just delete. Either is preferable to keep. Shelbystripes (talk) 07:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure how 60k of coverage of Hypatia transracialism controversy can be WP:DUE if this page is deleted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - I suspect the arguments against deletion are WP:IDONTLIKEIT, whether the commenters realize it or not. The subject has received substantial press coverage. Here are some sources:

For Rachel Dolezal:

- New York Times
- Huffington Post
- Slate
- BBC
- Literally dozens of articles in dozens of notable outlets using the term for Dolezal.

For another individual:

- The Federalist

In short, the concept is notable, has notable press coverage, and passes WP:GNG. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are mostly great examples of why there should be an article for Rachel Dolezal. But this supposed theory of transracial identity does not have notable academic usage or discussion in reliable sources dedicated to the topic. They’re nearly all dedicated to Dolezal. Having a separate page for this lends undue weight to it as a topic of its own right. Shelbystripes (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources put the term in quotes e.g ‘Transracial’ vs. Transgender. This indicates it is not an established term and this article should be titled "Transracial", but we don't have articles like that because that's not what encyclopedias do.--Pontificalibus (talk) 07:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The concept is notable. --Sharouser (talk) 03:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 05:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not an established term as evidenced by the vast majority of reliable sources using scare quotes. Therefore it's not even suitable for a dictionary let alone an encyclopedia article. --Pontificalibus (talk) 07:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:TOOSOON. Not an well-established term (vast majority of reliable sources using scare quotes). Wikipedia's Rachel Dolezal article says she resigned from her NAACP position and that she committed several lies.desmay (talk)

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. A Train^talk 07:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on Fire (mixtape)[edit]

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

Created by a confirmed sock. Basically fails WP:NALBUM —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable mixtape performed by a non-notable artiste created by an illegitimate editor. Darreg (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article passes GNG, having received multiple significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent. Stanleytux (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprised, article creator is a sock of yourself per this investigation. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes you are right, but that was like 4 years ago and I was just coming back from a long hiatus and didn't know what sock puppetry was at the time. Stanleytux (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Point out reliable sources/critical reviews about the album. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of links are dead. Why don't you check the archives or the ones I provided already at the other discussion about the artist. Stanleytux (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 05:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Many of those dead links weren't leading to significant coverage anyways. This certainly fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM as I couldn't identify a major chart listing or award.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's significant coverage in multiple reliable sources including Leadership, Vanguard, and The Guardian. Stanleytux (talk) 06:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: - fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM Samat lib (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The mixtape definitely fails WP:NALBUM when looked at in detail. A Google search doesn't show the mixtape being discussed in detail. Of all the sources cited in the article and in this AFD, the Nigerian Sounds source is the only source that dicusses the album. Using the charting argument to justify a delete is invalid here since Nigeria doesn't have a national music chart system. The music scene in Nigeria and majority of Africa isn't well structured. If the mixtape was critically reviewed by Pulse Nigeria or Nigeria Entertainment Today, I would easily vote keep. The mixtape may not be popular across Nigeria, but it is definitely popular in PH. 50,000+ downloads certainly proves this. The Nigerian Sounds source alone is not enough for stand-alone inclusion. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:00, 16 October 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. A Train^talk 07:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Senator International[edit]

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

I am unconvinced that this company meets the notability requirements of WP:CORP. The references cited are predominantly primary sources or in a specialist publication that is of little use for demonstrating notability. More mainstream coverage (but still local) predominantly discusses the airport the company flies to, rather than the company itself. My own searches have not turned up anything better and so unless I have missed something, I think it falls short of meeting our requirements. SmartSE (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The on-line sources are less than impressive:

[25] is the website of the subject
[26] This seems to be the only article with a byline. I'm not sure that it mentions anything we would find notable. It's used to support the statement "Since November 2016, "Senator International" has offered its own scheduled service from Munich and Frankfurt-Hahn to Greenville-Spartanburg using a Boeing 747 F."
[27] That website doesn't seem to work; all I see is a logo.
[28] Mentions a "a noteworthy biz model involving 4 parties". As far as I'm concerned, it's just another way of leasing a cargo plane.
[29] is the website of a company the subject merged with
[30] is the website of a company the formed a joint-venture with
[31] Looks like a press release from München aiport announce that the subject leased a plane from Air Atlanta Icelandic. That's a routine anouncement, not news, and definitely not encyclopedic.
[32] is the website of the subject
[33] is the website of the subject
[34] is the website of the subject
[35] is the website of the subject
[36] is the website of the subject
[37] is the website of the subject
[38] is the website of the subject
[39] is the website of the subject
[40] is a Business-to-business database

TLDR; It's an advertisement about a company that does not meet our general notability criteria and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. It is perhaps worth noting that a major contributor is a paid editor (no surprise, really). It takes some poking around, because User:Atomiccocktail and User: Einfach machen Hamburg, who are the same editor, has decided to disclose his COI at meta:User:Atomiccocktail, or rather at de:Benutzer:Einfach_machen_Hamburg but doesn't link to that account from the ones he uses to edit on enwiki. He does mention it in the edit summaries. Also note that the existance of an article on the subject in the German Wikipedia does not establish notability. German wikipedia has different policies and guidelines than enwiki. Mduvekot (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as if this is just an odd campaign against paid editing. To my mind the statement on the sources distorts the reality.

This article is based mostly on information given in DVZ. The Deutsche Verkehrs-Zeitung (DVZ, formerly Deutsche Logistik-Zeitung) is a specialized journal of the transport and logistics branch since 1947. If information of company’s website is used, it is to service the reader: “Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used to verify some of the article's content.”, see WP:CORP.

Turnover, branches and recognition in their business field indicate the relevance of this company in its market. Not only FedEx or Kuehne + Nagel are players there. Atomiccocktail (talk) 08:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Atomiccocktail's edit summary for the comment above, inserted here, does not accurately reflect his involvement and conflic of interest. A discussion about his behavior is not germane to the discussion about whether the article on Senator International should be retained, and should not be conducted in this thread, so I have started this discussion instead. Mduvekot (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mduvekot anf fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourcing about this international transportation company showing in the footnotes is sufficient for a pass of the GNG, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 05:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Mduvekot above, references fail the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Undeclared paid editing according the the enWP rules--the editing must be disclosed on the enWP for enWP articles, and at least at the enWP, running a company doing paid editing makes it necessary to declare oneself a paid editor for every article the company produces. Given that the references are inadequate, there is no basis for keeping the article. It's not the least odd for us to have a campaign against paid editing without explicit declaration, but our interpretation of COI policy. DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no paid editing, which is not declared. The opposite is true. Every edit that has been paid is named as such. If edits were not paid, of course it was not said that this post was a paid edit. I would liked to know exactly which paid edit I had concealed. Atomiccocktail (talk) 19:12, 14 October 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. A Train^talk 07:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cassie Jaye[edit]

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

Sources do not indicate this person meets WP:NBIO. Sources overwhelmingly focus on The Red Pill with relatively little coverage of Jaye herself, and no separate claims to notability.

This was a redirect to The Red Pill, but has been repeatedly restored without clear explanation. Grayfell (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have filed a request for arbitration enforcement against Stormwatch (talk · contribs), the user who has repeatedly restored this article. That request is available at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Stormwatch. --Yamla (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Red Pill & protect the redirect. The subject is not independently notable, and a separate article is not yet needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Articles about her and her work in NYT, Guardian, Evening Standard are referenced here and it's easy to find many more in e.g. Sydney Herald, The Australian, The New Daily, etc. What kind of reasoning is a separate article is not yet needed? A person is notable if they've done notable work and that notability is obvious from the many articles in mainstream sources that discuss her and her work. Agricola44 (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I don't see any individual notability for the director, only for their film. We don't have any policy that mandates articles for everyone who worked on something noteworthy (very few articles for people who work as best boys.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The analogy you're making is, for example, that a lab technician is not notable because of important discoveries and I agree. That is because that lab technician is not the "responsible party". But, the lab head/principal investigator is notable for these important discoveries. That is the crux of PROF #1. For this case, the relevant criterion is ARTIST #3: The person has...played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.... Now, unless you're claiming that (1) Jaye did not play a major role in producing The Red Pill and (2) The Red Pill is itself not significant, you have not really made a convincing case for a redirect. You already concede (2) in saying that the film is actually notable. So, do you stick by (1), i.e. that she did not play an important role in producing this film? K.e.coffman's reasoning seems to be the same as yours... Agricola44 (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be referring to some guideline or policy when you say 'PROF #1' and 'ARTIST #3'. Could you link those please? PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are official guidelines for assessing notability. Here is WP:PROF, though I only mentioned this as an example. The relevant one here is WP:DIRECTOR...Jaye quite obviously meets criterion #3, since there are many mainstream sources (named above) that specifically discuss her and her film. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria: If Jaye is a researcher who's work has influenced a discipline, what discipline? How, according to academic sources, has her research made a difference? This would still need reliable sources about that work, but we only have sources about the single movie she's made, and none of those sources discuss any sort of significant lasting impact on an academic field, nor is this likely for a relatively recently released film.

For Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals, that's more plausible, but the sources for The Red Pill do not suggest any sort of lasting legacy for the film either. There are no movies about the movie, nor any books or TV series. Is The Red Pill "significant"? Right now the film's article does a poor job of explaining that. It's mostly routine tabloid reviews, outrage culture op-eds, and news articles about the funding history and difficulty with screenings. The periodical reviews included are short and routine. There is very little indication of enduring coverage now that the film is out of theaters.

There has to be something more substantial than this. The important encyclopedic information about her can be placed on the film's article. The project isn't improved by poorly-sourced stubs for every single directer of every film. Grayfell (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, like I said, PROF was only mentioned as an example. DIRECTOR is the relevant guideline: her work is "important" in the sense that there is lots of coverage in mainstream sources (NYT, Sydney Herald, et al.), which satisfies criterion 3. There's no need for "movies about the movie" or any of the other imaginary hurdles you mentioned. The article may be poorly written, but that is not what is being adjudicated here. We are only assessing notability and the many sources demonstrate she passes. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DIRECTOR: ...In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. There's nothing imaginary about this, and if you're going to cite a guideline, you should cite the entire guideline. Grayfell (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another case where we're going to get down into the semantic mud, I suppose. This work has been the subject of many independent pieces in first-tier, mainstream sources, like NYT, Sydney Herald, etc...I count close to a dozen. So, I guess you're arguing that because the coverage isn't a movie about this movie, or a book about this movie, or a TV series about this movie, that her work is not notable, and by extension she is not notable. So, lots of coverage in NYT et al., but somehow that doesn't count. Do I have it? Agricola44 (talk) 04:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Somehow"? Obviously you don't have it. "Independent and notable work" is somewhat subjective, but none of these works about the Red Pill are notable. Category:Documentary films about films and Category:Books about films are notable works about films that presumably meet this threhsold. I don't think a bog-standard collection of movie reviews is enough, otherwise what is the point? I suppose there's room for disagreement regarding where this line lies, but as I said, I don't see how this article helps the project when the reliable sources of substance about Jaye are about The Red Pill doc, and all information can easily be placed there.

As for the first NYT article, it's a single paragraph, internet-only blurb paraphrasing the Guardian article already cited. The prestige of the outlet should not be overstated in this case, and its use in the lede looks like WP:BOMBARDMENT. The second NYT one is more significant, but it's five paragraphs which says nothing about Jaye other than using her name as a shorthand way to critique the film.

As an aside, if the article survives, that film (The Right to Love: An American Family) should be added to the article. Grayfell (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My points are (1) that an artist is notable if her work is notable and (2) there are tons of top-tier sources that demonstrate such. We evidently disagree on point (1). Closing admin will adjudicate. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 06:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agricola44 makes a compelling argument. As per WP:DIRECTOR she clearly meets point 3, she created the Red Pill and it is a significant work which is world wide being watched by people from Australia, Europe and North America to name just some of the places where people have attack it and tried to censure its content. It's been reported by news shows, newspapers and such like so clearly meets the additional requirement that such work must have been the primary subject of "...multiple independent periodical articles". Point 3 also ends with "...or reviews" so being the primary subject in reviews is enough to meet this point as well. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 13:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject meets point 3 of WP:DIRECTOR. I also contend that the article should be kept based on the valid points raised above by Agricola44 and ThinkingTwice. Bob from the Beltway (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Agricola44's reasoning. Aleccat 23:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect - not independently notable per proposer. Volunteer Marek 03:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Red Pill - Director is not independently noteworthy aside from the film. Much of the biographical content is unsourced, which would not be the case if she warranted her own article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In response to those who feel this meets WP:DIRECTOR, condition #3 specifically says that the director's film output must be significant. There are only 6 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes for The Red Pill. [[41]] This along with the sourcing shows the film exists, and has attracted attention for being controversial, but is really not significant. It might not even pass a deletion review of its own. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definately 100% does not meet WP:BIO WP:ACTOR, not notable stubs like this have no place here.NikolaiHo^☎️ 04:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 05:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although most of the coverage is about one of her films, that isn't the only thing she has gotten in the media for. See this, for example: [42]. And besides, considering the significant coverage that she has garnered, she seems to be notable anyways, as we have a large amount of coverage in reliable sources. Thus, the article should be kept and not deleted or redirected. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 12:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jaye is arguably one of the most notable figures in the manosphere. Numerous protologisms and neoligisms can be traced to her if following the etymology. Furthermore, a redirect is not logical since the subject of the redirect was llargely about herself, making it somewhat of an autobiography, hence nodding towards notability. In a nutshell, Jaye is notable outside her profession. 92.13.131.144 (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everyone who is talking about WP:ACTOR, WP:DIRECTOR, etc are missing the point here. The criteria for biographical articles comes down to the same criteria as all other articles, from WP:BASIC: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. As part of the AfD discussion template, there are links to sources like Google News and Google Scholar and Google Books. Taking a look at this results News - 1550, Books: 600+ (although I'm sure many of these are false positives you can see pretty clearly from the previews that she's discussed in multiple books, Custom Search 15,000+... It's true that this article isn't currently making adequate use of the WP:RS that covers her, and that's problem. But in terms of the WP:BASIC there's no question. - Scarpy (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. One film and it's a direct-sale WP:FRINGE movement film. Morty C-137 (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 01:31, 13 October 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 Now That's What I Call Music!. The bigger question is how to deal with music compilation series in general. I would suggest taking that discussion to WT:MUSIC. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music! 52 (UK series)[edit]

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

Not independently notable per NALBUM. We already have a container article for this series--well, "article" is a big word, it's just a list--and there is no need for this. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 19:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 19:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Drmies: I don't disagree with your deletion nomination, but out of curiosity, why did you pick this album out of the nearly 100 albums in the series? It seems to me that they are all equally (non-)notable, and if you delete one album, you may as well delete the articles for all of them.

I can see the notability of the overall "container" article Now That's What I Call Music!, because right from the first album they were huge sellers and had two effects on the UK charts: firstly, they showed the major record labels that they could put out their own "chart hits" albums and not license their tracks to the likes of K-Tel or Arcade; and secondly, their success was held responsible for the creation of the separate compilations chart in 1989. The first few albums in the series had some sort of novelty about them, and I would certainly be able to find actual album reviews for them – I remember reviews appearing in the UK music press at the time. But the series has long since descended into a three-times-a-year, regular-as-clockwork output, with nothing to distinguish the albums from each other. The usual single claim of notability is that they make number one on the UK compilations chart, but this really doesn't amount to anything, because the growth of DIY playlists from MP3s and Spotify in the last ten years has killed the compilations market, and the three annual Now! albums now account for up to 80% of all compilations sold in the UK each year, so getting to no. 1 when you have no competition is no great feat.

To be honest, in my view almost no individual compilation album is notable in its own right, and few compilation "series" are either – the Now!'s may be one of the few exceptions. Richard3120 (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- I picked one at random. Actually, I picked two, but the first one I picked had charted. No, I am not going to nominate every single compilation album. BTW it's not just about sales, of course, and getting to no. 1 is really no better than getting to no. 2; reviews are much more valuable for purposes of the GNG. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this one charted as well, reaching no. 1 – unfortunately you can't check it on the OCC's website because they seem to have an error and don't display any charts between April 2002 and January 2004. But it was the third biggest-selling compilation of the year (behind Now! 53 and Now! 51, of course). All 97 Now! compilations to date have either reached no. 1 or, in very few cases, no. 2 on the compilation chart. So really, I do believe that either they are all notable, or none of them are notable. As almost none of the albums after the first half dozen have any reviews at all, I would lean towards the latter view. By the way, the editor most keen on making articles for all these compilations is Hadji87, if you want to notify him of this AfD. Richard3120 (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, the error on the OCC's website makes it impossible to prove online that this album reached no. 1 in the UK compilations chart – I can add the citation to the print version of Music Week where the official UK charts are printed, but I would need a couple of weeks to go to the British Library and dig out the relevant issue. But here's the proof the album also reached no. 1 on the Irish compilation chart: https://www.chart-track.co.uk/index.jsp?c=p%2Fmusicvideo%2Fmusic%2Farchive%2Findex_test.jsp&ct=240003&arch=t&lyr=2002&year=2002&week=30.

So the question for other editors viewing this AfD comes down to this: is making no. 1 on two national compilation charts notable enough to keep the article? This album is no more and no less notable than any other album in the series: either they should all be kept, or they should all go. Richard3120 (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that all could/should be redirected (which I had done for nearly all other countries' Now releases that had articles years ago). Individually, they offer nothing but the track listings for each release. Popularity doesn't mean notable if they don't receive any coverage beyond first-week charting/sales totals. If someone wanted to expand the discography page, chart positions and/or certifications received can be added there. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've seen these before, and declined to nominate for AfD due to their chart success. I think the best solution is for all the individual albums to be merged to new per-country overview pages. I have no interest in doing any of this work, if nobody else is willing to volunteer this should be kept by default. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 05:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Now That's What I Call Music!, the container article, per the evidence and explanation given by Richard3120 above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Now That's What I Call Music!. An article like this one reveals the gap between the GNG and specialty sub-guidelines like WP:NALBUM. The reason that NALBUM asks that we preserve albums with high chart positions is because the guideline assumes that a high chart position will be correlated with lots of interesting things being written about that album. This is true 99% of the time, and then this is the 1% where it isn't. By the letter of the guideline, we need to keep this article, but the spirit of the guideline is to protect articles about which we could write encyclopedic articles. There is no potentially interesting prose to be written about this album, as far as anyone knows. If there had been a famous legal case involving Now! struggling to secure the rights to a particular song, or if the album had to be recalled because all of the songs had been overdubbed with satanic rituals, then we'd have an article. But just another hits compilation? A Train^talk 07:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@A Train: "satanic rituals"... some of these albums contain Justin Bieber songs, is that what you meant? Richard3120 (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. A Train^talk 09:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 18:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Young[edit]

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

Delete: as thoroughly non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 02:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a minor cast member does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And the US has 50 states. Equally true and also no relationship to the article ;-) gidonb (talk) 23:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - she had leading roles in at least two films: The Wildcat of Tucson and Prairie Schooners. In addition, she had another notable role in Girls of the Road. As such, she barely passes WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable actress per WP:NACTOR: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films". The article needs more info and more referencing. gidonb (talk) 01:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment further to my comment above, I have improved the referencing. gidonb (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 05:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Wildcat of Tucson and Prairie Schooners are not notable films by any stretch of the imagination, and the rest of her credits go downhill from there. Furthermore, passing mentions do not satisfy WP:RS. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions are not passing but lengthy and detailed. Both the movies The Wildcat of Tucson and Prairie Schooners are notable. There are many more references to the actress from the 1940s. gidonb (talk) 05:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Leading roles in at least two films: The Wildcat of Tucson and Prairie Schooners. Good sourcing: American Film Institute and several Google books.desmay (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD is open already a while but all this while no case has been made for deletion. As is clear from the improved article, the actress meets both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. If one were to claim that the films in which Young has lead roles are non-notable, these could be listed for deletion, however these films meet WP:NFILM. My claim is not that other stuff exists. I reject such arguments. Rather I'm pointing out that there are obvious dependencies here. It's like the category that is listed for rename but the name change should be discussed at the critical article for that category. Same with a lead actress of multiple feature films at the "Big Six". Only if the movies are nevertheless proven non-notable it would even be conceivable that their lead actors are non-notable. And even then Young meets the WP:GNG. But without addressing the films no case for deletion would be possible. Sure, it is said in the intro that the actress is not notable by the relevant professional guideline. It is the how not notable by that guideline that defies logic without procedurally addressing the films. After all, WP:NACTOR is crystal clear: actors are notable (amongst others) if they have "had significant roles in multiple notable films". gidonb (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be totally clear I'm adding only as a side note (!) that Young had significant roles also in the notable films Boobs in Arms and Girls of the Road. One of these is mentioned above. I'm concentrating however on her roles in The Wildcat of Tucson and Prairie Schooners because the female lead is so obviously a significant role. I'm trying to keep my argument simple. gidonb (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NACTOR, with two lead roles, plus plenty of supporting ones. Meets WP:GNG too. And she's been dead nearly 40 years. Why are we wasting time on this AfD? Edwardx (talk) 18:48, 17 October 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. A Train^talk 07:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dionne Rakeem[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. The claim of her song "Sweeter than Wine" charting at 46th in the United Kingdom may be false ~~as The Official Charts Company does not show anything about Rakeem or her song (not even in archives)~~ (source in article shows no entry). Fails WP:GNG ~~and WP:MUSICBIO~~. No secondary sources can be found. The subject-specific guideline (WP:MUSICBIO) exists as secondary to WP:GNG and "meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." — Za wl 15:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MUSICBIO#C2. Proof is available here.--Laun chba ller 15:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG--XFhumu^Talk 15:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is anyone going to address the MUSICBIO findings?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 05:03, 10 October 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. A Train^talk 07:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WEBT (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This is an ordinary, orphan, WP:2DABS page where disambiguation is not required. The primary topic has a hatnote to the only other use. De-PRODed by Patar knight who added a wiktionary reference to a non-English word. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:2DABS. This is to disambiguate Wikipedia articles, and is not a dictionary, I don't think the link to Wiktionary justifies a dab. Boleyn (talk) 09:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 09:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 09:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 09:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clear-cut example of TWODABS. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no longer 2DABs, and even if it was the wiktionary box added something more which gave utility to the DAB. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2DABs applies to dab pages with two topics, not three. webt is also a German word used three times in the English Wikipedia. Unscintillating (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No longer 2dabs. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 05:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep as no longer TWODABS. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 18:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, so why did you relist it seven days ago, and why did User:MBisanz relist it 15 days ago? Unscintillating (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these AfDs (and application of TWODABS) have been contested recently. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 02:40, 18 October 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 all. A Train^talk 07:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dheeraj Singh Moirangthem[edit]

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

I am sorry for doing this but these articles don't pass WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, and although the fact that India hosting the u-17 world cup is a great thing it does not make the individual players notable unless they pass the notability guidelines. Did not find the rational of why the PROD was removed convincing at all. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Inter&anthro (talk) 04:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Inter&anthro (talk) 04:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-sourced article from reliable sources;especially Rahul Kannoly Praveen and Dheeraj Singh Moirangthem, a simple google search comes up with plenty of hits. it passes WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY since they represented indian national team n a fifa world cup level. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. fails subject specific guidelines, specifically WP:NFOOTBALL which specifically excludes youth football as inherently notable. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE and per WP:ANYBIO does not indicate he has made widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record of football. ClubOranje^T 07:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, applies to all three, which I had previously PRODed. ClubOranje^T 07:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - None of them have received significant coverage, or played in a fully professional league, meaning all of these articles fail WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ALL - Amarjit Singh Kiyam is captain of Indian national under 17 football team. This team playing historical first ever FIFA world cup at any stage for the nation. All the notable sources are covering them. These players also represents team in many big tournament as AFC Championship. There are many articles for under 17 players, some of those not even play for their national team and in big tournaments. सुमित सिंह (talk) 08:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ALL - These players are incredibly famous atleast in ther home country, requesting to keep all, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemanth7787 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all They make work on the Indian part of wiki, but this is English wikipedia and they fail WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG Govvy (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply fails WP:GNG. Player is yet to play in a fully pro league. RRD (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I wonder that playing for a specific league is eligible for WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY but not for national team and FIFA tournaments. We need to review our policies. सुमित सिंह (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The player has not played for the senior national team, he has just played for the youth national team. A player playing for the senior national team is notable, not someone who has represented the youth team (FIFA competition etc does not matter). As said by Govvy, the player might be notable in some Indian wiki or football wiki, but not here. RRD (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply India is one of the largest english speaking country in the world.english is one of our offical language too so how can u say these profles should be on indian wiki not here?Playing for a youth national team is not notable But the players who playing the tournament is notable? how the tounament got a wiki here? Why this double standard? should 2017 FIFA U-17 World Cup also in afd?. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@सुमित सिंह and सुमित सिंह: to answer your question youth team appearances are not considered notable because many players who play for their youth team do not go on to become professional. How many of the Indian u-17 team can you name from 10 years ago? @Akhiljaxxn: there is no double standard, please read WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. I agree with both of you that there are problems in Wikipedia's notability guidelines and inherent biases, but these should be discussed in a constructive manner on places such as the WikiProject's talk page.

Trust me there is nothing I hate more than nominating articles for deletion, and it has happened to me too that article(s) which I put a lot of effort and time were deleted. If it were up to me I would never nominate articles for deletion. Unfortunately Wikipedia has policies and guidelines and we as editors have to follow them. There is still a lot of work to do on Indian football see here so please do not take this AFD personally and instead try to see it as a learning curve because we would all like you guys to stay and keep editing. If these articles happen to be deleted please remember all is not lost and you can always recreate them when they meet said guidelines. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Contrary to the above claims, they do not pass WP:NFOOTBALL as they have not played for the senior national team. It has been well established over many years that youth caps do not confer notability. Number 5 7 09:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Fail NFOOTY as have not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all none of these individuals meet our notability guidelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:58, 16 October 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  13:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Camping (computing)[edit]

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

Unsourced. Possible hoax. Searches turned up absolutely nothing relevant. You'd think in a specialized field like this it would be widely covered but nothing relevant came up in either Google Books or Scholar, almost all of the results on a standard Google search (for terms such as "server camping") are about Camping (computer gaming) or some other topic. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced and nothing to be found through searches. Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this seems to refer to a SYN flood (which is notable), but with no sources at all attesting the usage we cannot redirect. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic sounds plausible as a kind of denial-of-service attack, but I was unable to find any sources for this. With no verifiability, the article cannot stand. --Mark viking (talk) 00:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this sounds like BBS slang from the 1980s or early 1990s, I don't recall ever hearing the term though. It's been unsourced for a decade. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this topic fails the notability guideline. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  13:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iqbal Unnisa[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:BIO. NikolaiHo^☎️ 04:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sadly. Our only source is a self-published book and web, scholar, and book searches found little else. Searching for her at unom.ac.in reveals that she only directed the institute for six months, and anyway WP:PROF#C6 is only for heads of whole universities — head of department is far too low an administrative position to be automatically notable. Single-digit citations for her work in Google scholar are too low for WP:PROF#C1 even in a low citation field. Her association with notorious self-promoter Florentin Smarandache doesn't help. I'm all for promoting the accomplishments of underrepresented groups in mathematics (in this case both women and people from less-developed nations, although calling India "less developed" in mathematics seems a little odd) but we should do so by writing about people with significant accomplishments who might otherwise have been overlooked, not by being indiscriminate about who we include. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein Fails WP:GNG and her h-index is clearly low for WP:PROF particularly WP:PROF#C1 and also fails WP:PROF#C6 as she headed only a department and only for 6 months and not the whole university and could not find adequate coverage to meet general notability guideline either. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find papers with 6 and 2 GS citations. Not enough for WP:Prof, even in the low cited field field of pure mathematics. It would be helpful if people who wrote such articles would create a GS profile for the subject. This would make it easier for examination at AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- Is it possible to create GS profiles for people other than yourself? If so that seems ripe for abuse. The more poorly-curated ones of what we have now are bad enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I was thinking of ResearcherID. I have not tried with GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total failure of any and all notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 16 October 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 08:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Opondo[edit]

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

Non notable. The organization he founded may be notable by itself, but notability is not inherited. REferences are all either self published or primary, or passing mentions. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark (talk) 03:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG. Good sources. BabbaQ (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most of the information inside the article cannot be corroborated by the sources provided. Some references are just landing pages of websites which is WP:SPAM. From my personal search I could not find any reliable references about the subject but those about the organization he founded. An article about the organization can be spun off this subject. Kagundu Talk To Me 15:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I took a look to many refs, but coudln't find in the sources evidence for his notability; some statements of his as a student, an article he co-authored, and refs to his personal website, and the website of the organization he has founded. ——Chalk19 (talk) 07:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 05:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Glastris[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is very beautiful and therefore merits inclusion. Easily passes WP:Wow! criteria. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Firstly, flawed nomination with no explanation for starting it. Source shows notability with her field of sport. Has participated in World and European Championship which is the highest level of figure skating. Google search comes up with more. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: National champion; have added another source. PamD 08:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She competed in the world and European championships, according to the International Skating Union.[43] I think she satisfies WP:SKATER #1, but I'm not sure. What exactly does "qualifying round" mean? (She didn't make it to the finals of the world or European competitions.) Clarityfiend (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a national champion, and international competitor, she is notable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree this is a flawed nomination. National Champion and international competitions satisfy notability criteria. She has built an admirable sports resume. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Won the Greek national championship three times. International competitor. Never should have been nominated for deletion.desmay (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources listed do not pass WP:GNG but there could be more I hope. She actually appears to fail WP:NSKATE, does that matter here? The only thing I can see is that the 2010 worlds did not have a qualifying round, does that ambiguity somehow allows this skater that is that far off the competitive standard to pass WP:NSKATE. If someone could reference a discussion on this issue I would change my vote, otherwise the sourcing needs to improve or she is a clear fail. It is deeply puzzling that there is not a more active discussion on whether she belongs on wikipedia.18abruce (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: She is a national winner, and while NSKATE is a guideline, national championships in other nations do meet the criteria. There appears to have adequate coverage to meet GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 06:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) NikolaiHo^☎️ 03:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Heilman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The only content of this article is centred around James' Wikipedia involvement. Other than that, he is just another ER doctor. If it wasn't for his Wikipedia editing, there would be almost no content. If Wikipedia editing is reason for an article, why doesn't User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao have an article? For this reason, this article doesn't meet WP:BIO, and as previously mentioned, there is an issue of WP:BLP1E. There is a serious problem when over half an article is dedicated to his Wikipedia editing. NikolaiHo^☎️ 03:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

User:Nikolaiho, I think you misunderstand something pretty basic here: whatever someone's notability is based on (Wikipedia, gay porn, YouTubing, writing books on medieval studies) is irrelevant--what matters is what secondary sources have to say on it. I don't think old Ser Amantio has generated much coverage... Drmies (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ser Amantio may have even more coverage than Mr. Heilman. Try a Google query.NikolaiHo^☎️ 03:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: - you're right, I haven't. Three or four things, I think, nothing more. (Just ran a Google search on myself - ashamed as I am to admit that publicly - and I find that many of the "Steven Pruitt"s on the first page are not me.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ser Amantio di Nicolao, you are on Time magazines most influential people on the Internet, absolutely a living legend. Don't undercredit yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikolaiho (talk • contribs) 03:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Am still searching for the gay porn, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Ser Amantio di Nicolao, I am sorry: I didn't know you were such a player! Wow! Drmies (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123: and @Drmies: A hint: try the keywords "goat", "paintbrush", "Sebastopol", "Georges Braque roleplay", and "1923 Cadillac". That should get you somewhere interesting. Where, I don't know. Probably on an FBI watchlist somewhere. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think I should note that there is now an article about Ser Amantio di Nicolao (real name Steven Pruitt) which I created yesterday. Everymorning (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flattered, I'm sure, but I'm not sure I'm well-enough sourced to withstand scrutiny. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hook me up with citizenship and I won't PROD you. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the face of it, there seem to be numerous sources in the article that suggest the article subject is notable, though I'm not yet going to advocate keeping it. The discussion about Ser Amantio di Nicolao is irrelevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still problematic. GS h-index of 13 is far from enough from WP:Prof. May have to reply on WP:GNG. (I have been canvassed to this AfD. it seems that only previous deletes were canvassed) Xxanthippe (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Enough independent sources of good quality. WP:Prof is not relevant, it is his WP/WMF activities that make him notable. Disclosure: I have met James & worked with him online. Johnbod (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A deletion nomination should not be based on other stuff (WP:OSE), and should not misinterpret the prohibition against naval gazing about Wikipedia based on by-the-way mentions of editors in news-of-the-day reports. Exceptions occur, and the article has abundant evidence of that. I'll produce a substantive keep reason when someone provides a substantive delete rationale. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obvious keep. Since the previous deletion nomination, he's only gotten more coverage. It doesn't matter if the coverage is about editing Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CANVASSING - It appears that Nikolaiho is canvassing editors to this discussion. I received a comment on my talk page pointing out the existence of this AfD [44]. Although the notice was neutrally worded, it appears from their contribution page [45] that the only editors they notified were myself, Xxanthippe [46], FreeKnowledgeCreator, [47] and Montanabw, [48] all of whom voted "delete" in the first AfD of this article. If Nikolaiho was simply interested in getting more people involved, they would have notified all editors who participated in the previous two AFDs, as required. I suggest that Nikolaiho receive a block for an obvious violation of WP:CANVASS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Beyond My Ken, you are correct. I have left the editor a templated warning. Canvassing is really like a blow below the belt. Nikolaiho, I am disappointed. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Beyond My Ken,and sometimes canvassing backfires. See my !vote and comments. Montanabw^(talk) 14:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of viable sources. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has received major international media coverage for multiple aspects of his work on Wikipedia: Rorschach tests NYT 2009, Globe&Mail 2009; the reliability of its medical information CBC 2014, NPR 2016; the fight against paid editors Atlantic 2015, Vice 2017; his work on and departure from the Wikimedia board Register 2016. Very clear pass of WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E. Whether he's also notable as a physician or academic is by now completely irrelevant. And the nomination statement is completely flawed: if someone is notable for their work on Wikipedia, it is unproblematic and indeed what we would want and expect for their article to focus on their work on Wikipedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definetely keep; just because someone else who may be notable doesn't have a Wikipedia article (yet) is besides the point! This person is for sure notable, and a Wikipedia article about him is valuable encyclopedic knowledge. Let's not waste further time on this. EMsmile (talk) 11:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yeah, I was dubious last time around, and yep, I did get a talk page notice. But I've changed my mind on things since the last round. Individual has had substantial outside neutral third-party coverage that clearly meets GNG. If he's notable primarily for being a wikipedian, then yay, wikipedia is notable enough that it's most prominent content contributors are deemed notable. Montanabw^(talk) 14:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has received extensive coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources. Wikipedia just happens to be the subject of the discussion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - are we ready for snow close yet? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OK, I'm persuaded to support keep at this stage. Changing my position from the first AfD, which I had completely forgotten about. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this player does not meet the relevant notability guidelines, cited in the nomination statement. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  13:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Bearss[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. External links are both broken and provide no information. Does not appear to meet WP:GRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH standards for inclusion. Ham tech person 02:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.~~ MassiveYR ♠ 05:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.

Delete. Played college football in Canada but does not satisfy WP:NCOLLATH. Also, I am not finding significant coverage of the type needed to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 08:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of passing WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GNG — and being in the major league draft pool but not getting picked by a team is not a notability criterion at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 10 October 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) f e minist 05:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Oaks Avenue (Pasadena, California)[edit]

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

No notability asserted, tagged for sources since 2007. Deprodded after 7 day expiry. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "... is a major north-south road connecting the communities of Altadena, Pasadena, and South Pasadena" is an assertion of notability. Books have extensive coverage going back as far as 100 years of the road’s development, the importance of the growth of Pasadena and South Pasadena and route description. [49][50][51][52][53]--Oakshade (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We're not here to run Google Maps, whilst the road may be 'major' for the suburb, it's hardly major on an encyclopaedic scale. «l|Promethean|l» (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing sources from the article that were added during this AfD. [54]--Oakshade (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - The above user is now stalking me and showing up at AfD's I've participated in to !vote against me and even reverted improvements/adding source I made to this article. [55]--Oakshade (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Photos showing avenue c.1900 with streetcars goes far to establish notability. Article has sources, meets wp:GNG. Removing content during (or just before) an AFD is not cool. --do ncr am 04:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Doncram. Major street in major city. GNG for geographic location is adequate. Montanabw^(talk) 05:11, 16 October 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. Can't redirect to Popsicle stick as it would be a double redirect. If an article ever emerges at Popsicle stick then no prejudice against reviving this article as a redirect then. A Train^talk 07:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paddlepop stick[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability. Meatsgains (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable in itself, and a differently-spelled article on Paddle pop already exists. Any valid content should go there. Can't even see the need for a redirect to it. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that the article Paddle pop is about the food, not the stick. But the article may be insignificant. Cricketer993 (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2017
Delete Seriously wondering why a one-line article with no refs merits an AFD. Content entirely insignificant.96.127.242.251 (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Be nice on the newbie. None of the delete !votes here actually present why the subject is not notable, and there are probably sources out there. I will be finding them over the next few minutes. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 01:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is a newbie?96.127.242.251 (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to popsicle stick (currently a redirect) – It took a lot of Google Books searches but I've finally found: Handbook of Popsicle Stick Bridges and Bridges: Amazing Structures to Design, Build and Test. There is probably more as well, but I cannot find them. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 02:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[[Use[reply]
J947 thanks for that. I've been slammed with school for the last few days. Yeah, moving it there is a good idea. Keep and move Cricketer993 (talk) 06:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Is this a joke? No citations, clearly fails WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fancruft and trivia, and not even grammatically correct: "It is used for it's (sic) strength". No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:18, 17 October 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. Greenbörg, it would have been helpful if you had included a note in the edit summary or here on the AfD explaining why you struck out Mfarazbaig's comment. A Train^talk 07:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Train It was my mistake so sorry for that. I struck out because he got blocked for sock puppetry. Greenbörg (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the 2016 Lahore suicide bombing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I am revisiting this quote farm in light of a recent discussion on another "Reactions to..." article. The consensus was to delete -- "clearly" as the closer described it. I realize using other stuff is mostly frowned upon (and rightly so) but this negates editor opinion that there is "precedent" to keep these quote farms. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and loosely synthing routine reactions that weren't important enough for the actual article doesn't change that. I do not advocate for a merge because the article on the attack summarizes the world's condolences in an orderly manner. Really, there is no policy based reason to keep this: notability isn't inherited to the attack and individual reactions must be judged individually so WP:GNG does not apply either. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not much to write about with limited sources. This is clearly a WP:QUOTEFARM and as per precedent set by recent discussion this is not much valuable on WP now. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge (selectively, the more notable ones) into 2016 Lahore suicide bombing. These "reactions" articles serve a purpose in "current event mode" (this directs the "reaction" news flow off of the main article) or in the case of truly mega events (which can have very large articles, in which case sub-articles make sense). In this case, the main article isn't very long (18K bytes) - and there is no need for a separate "reactions" article.Icewhiz (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Looks like the most significant reactions are in the main article in any event - so I'm striking the merge vote, though it might be possible to selectively merge a few additional bits.Icewhiz (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep & WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE - The previous AfD was closed just a month ago. What happened at AfD for other article has no business here. This easily passes WP:GNG. See: CBC News, Ottawa Citizen, CBC News, Catholic Herald, Daily Bruin, DAWN, Metro News, PCP. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mfarazbaig how do seperate reactions pass GNG; they must all be judge, well, separately. Anyways, my rationale quite thoroughly explains why these quote farms are not for the encyclopedia. I realize you are part of the Pakistan WikiProject but you must handle this case objectively. And please understand no rational admin will close this prematurely simply because you don't like the nomination.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an indiscriminate collection of information, lacking WP:LISTN. Compare with:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the Las Vegas concert shooting, closed as "delete"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings, same

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a request to merge this article into 2016 Lahore suicide bombing has been received at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers#Merge requests, but I won't put merger tags on the articles for the moment. Richard3120 (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that nominator made 15 posts in the previous nomination, and waited one day less than the recommended two months before renominating. From WP:Renominating for deletion, oldid=765442501:

====Advice on renominating====

When you do renominate, try to make a better nomination statement than was made last time. Address directly the issues that caused the participants to not be persuaded last time. Emphasize the issues that were not sufficiently considered last time.

Be warned that some consider renominations to be disruptive, or gaming. Don’t exacerbate this problem by badgering the participants in the new discussion.

Posted by Unscintillating (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating be warned, casting aspersions is just as disruptive as any illusionary scenario where I am supposedly trying to game any system. "Precedence" was the main point, as non-policy based as it is, by keep voters in the previous discussion. If you read my re-nomination statement, I address this and more -- quite thoroughly. This "advice" was not even marginally relevant to me, and I'm sorry but your comments at AFD have been head-scatchers as of late.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per K.e.coffman and others, as an indiscriminate collection of information, lacking WP:LISTN. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I passed on the first one, but I would like to remind past and future participants that WP:OSE and WP:ITSA are essays, as the Slick mentions.L3X1 (distænt write) 01:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bactiguard Wire Brass[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND, created by what appears to be a WP:SPA. Searches turned up absolutely nothing. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage found to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. gongshow talk 06:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BAND, WP:GNG, and seems to be made by someone with close relations to the article. It has been a stub and orphan for years. I have tried to de-orphan and destub this article to no avail. AmericanAir88 (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this player does not meet the football notability guideline – filelakeshoe (t / c)  13:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Reyes[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator based on an unsourced claim that the Costa Rican top flight is fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of having played fully pro.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:FPL neither lists the Costa Rican league as an FPL, nor as a non-FPL, meaning nobody could find a reliable source either way. If someone could find one either confirming or denying its professional status, that would be helpful not just for this AfD but going forward. I don't really have the time right now, but might later in the week. This is why AfD's run seven days. Smartyllama (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BLP about footballer who recently signed with Pachuca's youth side, who has played in a youth World Cup and one-and-one-half season in the Costa Rican top division. I can only find routine coverage (match reports and transfer news) with very limited exceptions. I don't know if the Costa Rican top division is fully-pro (which appears unlikely when you look at pictures of the "crowd" in league matches like this), but I don't see enough coverage of typical players (i.e., not "stars") participating in the league to justify an assumption of notability. Jogurney (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this player does not meet the football notability guideline. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  13:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Nájera[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator based on a claim that the Andorran top flight is fully pro. This claim is unsupported and contradicted by sources at WP:FPL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I'm not sure about this one. UEFA's article about Andorra's league implies that it is professional without saying one way or the other outright. Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues currently lists Andorra's Primera Diviso as not fully professional. If the league is fully professional, then this guy meets the bar of WP:NSOCCER. If not, he doesn't. Hopefully someone can come up with a definitive, but at the moment I lean towards WikiProject Football's assessment. A Train^talk 20:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for a hand. A Train^talk 20:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not a fully professional league. Number 5 7 21:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails subject specific guidelines, specifically WP:NFOOTBALL having not played at professional or international level. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE and per WP:ANYBIO does not indicate he has made widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record of football. Unless of course he has given up Football, moved to California and started skateboarding...but that seems to be someone else. ClubOranje^T 05:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:54, 13 October 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.