< 24 September	26 September >

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. ansh 666 05:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corbin Billings[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a filmmaker, not referenced to enough reliable source coverage about him to clear WP:GNG. Of the nine distinct sources here, two are primary sources (a YouTube video and the Amazon sales profile of his book), two (American Forests and Daily Beast) are pieces of content where he's the bylined author, one ("TheInsite.org") is an article on the website of an organization which is not a media outlet, two are Q&A interviews where he's quoted talking about himself and his own work, one is a 50-word blurb and one is a glancing namecheck of his existence in a film's cast and crew list. All of which means that none of the sources here are helping him get over GNG: some of these sources would be fine for some supplementary verification of facts after GNG had already been covered off by third-party sources, but cannot be bringers of GNG as they represent the subject talking about himself, and none of the others count for anything at all. This was also tagged for ((notability)) from 2011 until three days ago, when that was removed by an anonymous IP -- so I also suspect, but cannot definitively prove, conflict of interest editing. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being the youngest contributor to some organization is not a sign of notability, and none of his others actions amount to notability. Just being a journalists, especially at the publication he is with, is also not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete lacks lacks sufficient coverage in WP:RS. Does not meet WP:GNG Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Psiĥedelisto (talk) 04:34, 3 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 The Sisters of Mercy. czar 03:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wake (video album)[edit]

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

This article does not meet our notability criteria for albums WP:NALBUM and is exclusively sourced to sisterswiki and thesistersofmercy.com I have not been able to find significant coverage of the recording in in independent, reliable sources. Mduvekot (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 22:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Sisters of Mercy. No significant coverage. — Za wl 10:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above.Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:09, 3 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 speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GAKIC[edit]

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

Not clear that topic meets WP:GNG. May be WP:DEL4 sourced only to works by the authors of the patent. Product clearly has Google hits from sites selling it, but I can't find substantial coverage in secondary sources. Would appreciate more eyes on this. Ajpolino (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: source search shows no reliable coverage for verifiability or notability. Orphaned since February 2009 which is how I came across it. DrStrauss talk 10:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete lacks lacks sufficient coverage in WP:RS. Does not meet WP:GNG. Sources are about the ingrediaents, not the subject itself. Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:13, 3 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. A7, no plausible indication of notability DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse A Stamps[edit]

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

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Claims of significance are unsubstantiated and sources are unreliable. Comatmebro (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 22:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 22:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 22:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability claim is based mostly on IMDB, which is not a reliable source. Does not satisfy biographical notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meat notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 26 September 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 deleted under WP:G7. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 21:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle channel[edit]

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

accidental creation of page Anniethiessen (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no need for a discussion - since you're the only one who has edited the article and want it deleted, I've placed a "db-author" tag on it, and an admin will delete it shortly. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 21:13, 25 September 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. ansh 666 05:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diu College[edit]

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

Failing WP:ORG and WP:GNG Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a page of an educational institution. Any educational institution is notable even if it is a single room; as it helps to increase the human knowledge. It is not the page of some supersticious temple or church. It is a newly established college in an island and also only one college in that small island. Third party source of this article is also available in the references; in the pdf of Saurashtra University affiliated college list. Thus I think this article is suitable for wikipedia.--Soumitrahazra (talk) 25 September 2017

Comment Absolutely not, per Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Schools, all universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 22:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 22:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 22:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is amply enough for WP:V, which is the only relevant pillar policy here and that alone is notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it was demonstrated that it exists and not a hoax, which is the only thing that matters for ~~secondary schools~~ degree awarding institution. --Muhandes (talk) 05:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC) ; edited 13:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus states that secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. — Za wl 11:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, the term "secondary schools" was inappropriate and corrected. I think the message was understood even if the wrong term was used. --Muhandes (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The consensus is that pretty much all secondary and post-secondary educational institutions are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIs a recognised college affiliated to the Saurashtra University degree-awarding institution.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:25, 1 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) 18:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maheen Kardar Ali[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG label recently deleted NN which has been a WP:NOTINHERITED kind of justification for the N of this
WP:NOTPROMO per WP:BOGOF (undisclosed COI editors) Widefox; talk 09:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: needs at least some independant opinion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 21:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete people who are one of many designers for a label are rarely notable, only the head designer/owner/founder is generally notable (if 3 people, maybe three notables), but just being "a designer" is usually not enough. Maybe if he had designed lots of named things, but we lack sourcing to show that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:13, 1 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of screenwriting "gurus"[edit]

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

PROD was removed, addressing neither of original concerns: Article appears to be purely original research. The title says gurus, which is a value judgment unsupported by references. The actual criteria for selection appears to authorship of a book about screenwriting, which makes the title disingenuous. If the author rewrites the article and provides an authoritative secondary source for the list, I will withdraw. Didn't happen. Rhadow (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but just those who can be sourced, e.g. Syd Field ("Screenwriting Guru Syd Field Dies at 77", Hollywood Reporter; "Syd Field, 'screenwriting guru', dies aged 77", BBC), Robert McKee ("Screenwriting guru Robert McKee on this year's Oscar contenders", Los Angeles Times; "Robert McKee: Hollywood's screenwriting guru on Breaking Bad, Charlie Kaufman, and the 'monumental' future of storytelling", The Daily Telegraph). Turns out "screenwriting guru" is a reasonably well-known term.[1][2] Clarityfiend (talk) 05:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Fine. Notice however, how weak most of the BLPs are that make up this list. Most are tagged aready. Rhadow (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT and for failing WP:LISTN. Yes, some people may have been called "gurus" in news coverage, but has this topic as a whole been a subject of WP:SIGCOV in reliable secondary sources? It does not appear to be so. Even the article notes:

"A screenwriting "guru" is a screenwriter, screenwriting teacher or author who writes or lectures about the craft of screenwriting. The term "guru" is a contentious one, not least because the word implies that these individuals are experts in the field and have much to teach aspirant screenwriters, yet few "gurus" have themselves achieved any success in the film industry and most are not known for their own screenplays/scripts."

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. There could potentially be a "list of screenwriters" but only if it is well sourced and adds some value._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:LISTCRUFT; no WP:RS citing and WP:OR, also applies. Kierzek (talk) 21:00, 28 September 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 Kansas's 4th congressional district special election, 2017.[3] ansh 666 05:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Thompson (Kansas politician)[edit]

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

An article on this topic was AfD'd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Thompson (American politician)) with a close of redirect to Kansas's 4th congressional district special election, 2017 a month ago. A new article was created for the subject a few days ago. Totally AGF, the creator did not know that the article had existed and was redirected. Now that the article is fleshed out, it's clear to me that the original redirect was the correct decision, as most of the content of the article is about the election, not the candidate. The candidate fails WP:GNG with not enough coverage about him, the person, and fails WP:NPOL as a failed political candidate for office. The first AfD's closing admin suggested a redirect but in deference to the contributors, I've chosen to open a new AfD instead. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ redirect no reason not to assume good faith on the article creation, but I see no reason to change the decision (no new notability data or reasoning). I was involved in the original discussion but did not take a position either way. If new information about notability of the subject has been found, that would change things.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The original article, which I hadn't know existed, which apparently was little more than a stub. As of a few days ago I knew very little about Thompson except for his name and his rather extraordinary and notable recent electoral race. However, I was baffled when I looked him up on Wikipedia and there were only confusing redirects. I live a very long way, a three day drive from Wichita, where he practices. So I set to creating an article, not knowing that one had previously existed. I've made 30 or more edits to the article in the last few days, putting in probably 18 hours on it. Mine has background on his family of origin, including homelessness in Oklahoma, and his secondary education. He went into the U.S. Army and became a member of the presidential honor guard which also serves at burials at Arlington National Cemetery, a noteworthy post. He used the G.I. Bill to go to Wichita State where he majored in Political Science, then went on to get a law degree at Washburn University in the state capitol in Topeka. This is highly rated law school. He got married and has a daughter around 11 years old. He has a general practice and specialized in civil rights law and handled some notable cases. I've gotten the impression he's done considerable, important, pro bono work. He was very involved in organizing the Bernie Sanders campaign in Kansas. He's never run for any office before. When the incumbent, Mike Pompeo, was nominated by Trump to head the CIA, Thompson filed to run for the seat. He had no money, connections or endorsements. However, he did have a very steep challenge. The leading candidates for the post included the former multiple term house minority leader, a Democrat who became the state treasurer and was known for turning his home city, Greensburg, into a "green" community, after a monumental tornado leveled that town. The former multiple term Sedgwick county treasurer, who won two races for the post of Kansas Treasurer, jumped into the race, as did the former nine-term Republican 4th District congressman. The Democratic nominee for the seat in 2012 was also in the race. So a complete political unknown wound up winning the nomination in the district caucus from a much loved establishment candidate with a statewide reputation. On the Republican side the two-time State Treasurer won. A libertarian candidate was also on the ballot. Although this was essentially the first test for a Trump surrogate, the national Democratic party did nothing for Thompson, with the new head of the Democratic National Committee, former Labor Secretary Tom Perez, emphatically stating he would get no help from the DNC. The national Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee also ignored him, though the party spent over $10 million a week later challenging a seat that was thought possibly winnable in Georgia. The only endorsement Thompson got was the Sanders-affiliated "Our Revolution." The DCC finally wound up getting involved doing a single robocall, the day before the election, and after the absentee ballots had already been cast, when a poll showed Thompson had risen from 30 points behind to within single digits with very little money and a novice, almost entirely volunteer campaign staff. The state party, flush with dough and having vigorously supported the establishment candidate in the caucus, and embarrassed by its adamant refusal to give him anything at all, finally came across with $3,000 a week before the election. This was expected to be a slam dunk for the Republican party, which had won the seat by an average margin of over 30% for the previous 13 years, and had been gerrymandered to be even more conservative, and had taken it from an incumbent in 1994. Trump won the district by 27 points in November, and the "D"s last won it in a high turnout presidential election year, 1992. Special elections in off-years tend to be very low turnout and strongly tend conservative. Estes had a 60% advantage in campaign contributions and SuperPAC money flooding in on top of that, where Thompson had none. Mike Pence and other national figures did robocalls for Estes and Ted Cruz came up from Texas for a fundraiser/rally. The SuperPAC TV ads were what the regional paper called "venomous," mendaciously accusing Thompson of advocating for taxpayer-funded, late term abortions, a complete fabrication. In the only debate Estes he attended, he accused Thompson of supporting Planned Parenthood, which Estes said ("fake news alert")was profiting from fetal tissue, the product of abortions, which was another complete lie. This is in a city where conservatives publicly celebrated the assassination of an abortion almost exactly eight years earlier. So Thompson, with virtually no party support and in the face of immense opposition, reduced the win margin of the Republican candidate by about 80%. I am reminded of the Samuel Johnson quote: (it)... is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all." Now if that isn't notable, and I have been an intense student of electoral politics for a very long time, I can't imagine what might be considered so. Thompson filed for the 2018 election for the seat. The country, I expect, will be paying attention. Activist (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia does not exist for the advancement of a political cause. The reasons given above seem to me to be supporting deletion. On "expecting" the country to pay attention, that is essentially WP:CRYSTAL (using a crystal ball to predict the future) and Wikipedia does not speculate. NOTE: The editor may be correct... but we don't generally create encyclopedia articles about something that might happen in the future. That said, I've removed my "speedy" and go with just re-direct. There is no harm that I can see in having this AFD run its course--the other option would be closing here and going to deletion review and that seems to be more of a problem and less of a solution. AFD is not infallible, and maybe consensus made a mistake last time... let's find out.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete defeated candidates for US congress are not notable. Inordinate coverage due to this being a special election does not change that basic fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL, all coverage relates to his failed run for office. AusLondonder (talk) 03:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Many of the details in the article can be incorporated into the article about the special election, and the history could be preserved if the subject wins election to a notable office. The community consensus is that candidates for elected office do not possess inherent notability even if the campaign is notable (see WP:BLP1E). --Enos733 (talk) 03:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NPOL is not an absolute ban on articles about not-elected politicians. It's a guideline that advises us that candidates for office are not guaranteed to be notable, but that "such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'". There is significant coverage of Thompson in reliable sources [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11], ergo he passes the WP:GNG. – Joe (talk) 07:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Much of that is the WP:ROUTINE coverage of a candidate nominated for office in a special election. It's the reason we have NPOL. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I became aware of what I presumed was a surprising lack of an article on this candidate because I'm a member of the Kansas project (as well as a number of other states from around the U.S.). My response to the absence was to create one, and my attention had been drawn to election itself because there were numerous issues involved that made it rapidly move rapidly from relative obscurity, to prominence on the national political radar. Mike Pence and other national Republican figures were involved in a huge late effort to retain this long heavily Republican seat, which suddenly seemed endangered, within the majority. Thompson, an obscure, grossly underfunded and negligibly-supported candidate, had rapidly and spectacularly closed on a well known opponent. Trump weighed in on it just hours after the polls closed. The process and the results were themselves quite remarkable, as I've indicated above. This election reminds one of the special Senate election held in January 2010 which produced a significant upset when Scott Brown won the Senate seat formerly held for 48 years by Ted Kennedy. A similar election in British Columbia led to the founding of the New Democrat third party. Editors might find this By-election article interesting,

A 2016 study of special elections to the United States House of Representatives found "that while candidate characteristics affect special election outcomes, presidential approval is predictive of special election outcomes as well. Furthermore, we find that the effect of presidential approval on special election outcomes has increased in magnitude from 1995 to 2014, with the 2002 midterm representing an important juncture in the nationalization of special elections."

Activist (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a disagreement about what you write above, but all of this information can be contained in the article about the election itself. With limited exceptions, the community consensus is that losing candidates for federal offices are redirected into the page about the election, or to a list of candidates from a particular party (see WP:POLOUTCOMES). The exceptions usually involve internationalization of the coverage of the candidate (i.e. significant coverage in Canada about a local candidate in the US, sometimes measured in the sheer scope of contemporary coverage) (but internationlization is not always sufficient) or an evaluation that the subject would meet WP:GNG independent of the campaign (and the focus of the article would be about the subject's other activities, rather than politics). I believe this consensus appropriately protects the subjects (candidates) and this wiki project. --Enos733 (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to have significant coverage in both national and international outlets. I just removed the NPOV statements in the article, so I see no reason to delete it, as it is well-sourced. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 21:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: This man will be running for office next year and is already declared and fund raising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:cd48:ba00:ece1:52bf:2bef:edff (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2017
- There is no Wikipedia policy cited in this vote so it can be disregarded. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Could be (theoretically) if there is significant coverage to pass WP:GNG... but I cannot find any. Therefore, it's just a prediction and falls under WP:CRYSTAL (crystal ball of the future) and as stated above, that's not a reason to keep an article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Being an as yet unelected candidate in a future election does not get a person a Wikipedia article in and of itself. A person has to win the election and thereby hold office, not just run, to get an article for being involved in an election in and of itself — otherwise, you have to either show that he already passed a Wikipedia inclusion criterion for some other reason independent of the candidacy, or that his candidacy garnered so much media coverage (e.g. Christine O'Donnell, whose coverage went international) that his candidacy was significantly more notable than most other candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the election article. Candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se — outside of very rare special cases like the international media firestorm that ate Christine O'Donnell, a person has to win the election, not just run in it, before "was an election candidate" constitutes a valid notability claim in and of itself. But isn't referenced to anything like enough coverage about him to make his candidacy more notable than most other non-winning candidacies — it's referenced to the WP:ROUTINE type and volume of election coverage that's simply expected to always exist in any election. To make a candidate notable just for the fact of being a candidate, the candidacy coverage has to explode far outside of the norm, the way O'Donnell's did — raw tables of election results and glancing namechecks of his existence in routine coverage of the race itself, which is what nearly all of the sources here are, are not enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to relevant election article, per policy. Coverage is not significant enough and subject does not meet Wikipedia:NPOLITICIAN. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a stump for political hopefuls to publicize their campaigns.Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:27, 3 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) 16:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore Renaissance Foundation[edit]

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

No indication of notability after a search for independent, reliable sources that suggests the organisation passes the relevant notability guidelines. The sourcing is also poor and without any reliable sources I struggle to see how this can be rectified. DrStrauss talk 16:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not accrued significant (third party) coverage and as such fails WP:ORGDEPTH.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient coverage in reliable sources to build an article. Antrocent (♫♬) 19:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- No IRS records for nonprofit found. Rhadow (talk) 21:05, 25 September 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. ansh 666 05:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obituary - a grave beginning[edit]

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

A search for sources reveals little coverage in major media sources. Most of the coverage is on Reddit which isn't a reliable source. Furthermore the article is all plot. DrStrauss talk 16:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: No sources provided, but a plausible number of Google hits, and provided that it can be improved in the draftspace. ToThAc (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only if someone is planning to incubate it... czar 03:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced and not likely to develop any WP:RS in the near future. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Lacks RS, fails GNG. No need to draftify.Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:30, 3 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. Yikes, a 4-relist discussion. Anyways, no discussion of BD2412's proposal seems to be forthcoming, and consensus even before seems to be that the article should be deleted. ansh 666 20:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Fighting Championship[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

New version was deemed to different from the last AfD deleted version for A7 so that speedy was declined but the PROD with the reason - no real references, and a previous version was deleted due to notability concerns that these references do not address - could not be done either so here we are.PRehse (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability and no significant independent coverage. The sources are someone's blog, some fight results, and a bunch of articles saying their future events will be at the Alaska Airlines Center. In other words, nothing that shows this promotion is notable. In addition, the article is simply a list of blank fight cards for upcoming events. This promotion wasn't notable before and I don't see where that has changed. Papaursa (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and WP:SPIP, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment everything bad Papaursa says about the article is accurate; I've removed the blank fight cards from the article. I'm unwilling to say this doesn't meet GNG, but can't find any articles that suggest it does either. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep We encourage content building that fundamentally confuses the difference between an encyclopedia and a news site and gives undue weight to whatever low-hanging fruit Google dumps in one's lap. Resultantly, we see a pair of articles created solely to parrot a press conference, all the while ignoring the actual reliable sources out there. Such a stance has been furthered by others throughout this process. For instance, multiple reliable sources show that Sarah Johnston Lormier has been the owner or managing partner of the promotion since 2007. In this article, however, we have an infobox entry which refers to a Twitter handle sourced to a blog (and she isn't the founder, either). This AFD's nominator then proceeds to "fill in blank references" instead of bothering to scrutinize their reliability. Then I see a participant in the other AFD make a big deal out of BLP concerns because some fighters scheduled for the card were named (and predictably enough, that article was deleted anyway). Aside from the hilarity and potential irony of one of those fighters having the surname "Minus", that "problem" is downright innocuous compared to what I describe above. What a train wreck. This sort of going through the motions is precisely why I've cut way back on patrolling new pages.

A news archive search mostly of the Anchorage Daily News (search index accessible from adnsearch.com) shows that the promotion's coverage is heavy on its UFC affiliation in general, including emphasis given to the appearance of Chuck Liddell and Dana White at past events, as well as the promotion serving as a career springboard for Andy Enz, Nic Herron-Webb and Lauren Murphy (BTW, the timing of the last attempt at an AFC article coincides with a point in Enz's career ascent and associated coverage, but some of us are at a disadvantage to judge that if we can't view the content). Coverage related to the press conference states that the UFC deal figures into the decision to move to the Alaska Airlines Center. The focal point of that coverage was not that particular point or even AFC, but rather how the Sullivan Arena continues to lose business to their upstart competitor, to the extent of failing to point out that the Sullivan can be rented out as a half house, whether AFC has done so and whether therefore the move represents a step up or step down in terms of how many tickets they can sell.

Considering all that, the ADN has run a small handful of 1,500 to 2,000-word stories substantially about the promotion dating back to its first six months of existence in 2004, which combined give a halfway credible telling. Stories state that AFC has been among the Sullivan's top three tenants for most of its existence, along with the Aces and Seawolves hockey teams (the former of which also pulled out this year), that they've enjoyed attendance figures comparable to those events (with the caveat that the best-attended events were perhaps the 2006 co-promotions with concerts such as Drowning Pool and Naughty by Nature, plus the event where Liddell appeared) and that the popularity of AFC and MMA in general in Alaska has been influential enough to spur minor public outrage on occasion and to call for reinstating Alaska's defunct athletic commission. I'd suspect that coverage from other outlets does exist, even if they're hard to find. The all-inclusive search function found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/sources doesn't work as intended. Still, the "development" of the article thus far reflects the results of the same Google search I made, leaving me skeptical that any of those MMA sources were consulted. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you post some of the articles you found? That site is a bit difficult to navigate. Mr. Magoo (talk) 05:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try this and this. Contrary to what others in this discussion have attempted to claim, the non-routine hits found at those links alone plainly satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. I still don't have the time to go through everything, but what I've read appears to also satisfy WP:SIGCOV, though not to a great extent. The aforementioned sources page at WP:MMA speaks of the importance of non-MMA-specific sources so as not to create the impression of a walled garden. Unless, however, I'm supposed to believe that such a statement applies only to that page and not to this page or the article under discussion. This is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to reach after reading some of the arguments here, the latest being to categorically excuse away local media coverage as "routine", all the while continuing to demonstrate that zero effort has been made by anyone but myself to actually examine those sources. Last I checked, WP:V has nothing to do with how much low-hanging fruit a Google search returns, which appears to be the "notability standard" being applied here by everyone else. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete I didn't find anything that shows the UFC and AFC are actually affiliated, except for both being MMA promotions. Local coverage of sporting events doesn't seem like enough to show notability and doesn't WP:GNG say there should be multiple sources and that "multiple publications by the same person or organization are considered to be a single source"? User RadioKAOS seems to say that the AFC is notable because some people have attended their events or once competed for them, but that doesn't mean the AFC is notable.Sandals1 (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Mixed martial arts#Promotions - no evidence of sufficient standalone notability but the sparse coverage suggests it would fit right in as a sentence or two in the promotions section of the MMA article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment on the merge suggestion; the target article says, there are hundreds of MMA promotions around the world. If there really are hundreds of them, and this one isn't notable, would adding it there be a case of WP:UNDUE? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a valid concern, but I found a way to get around that with guidelines I set for another article I created - Meal kit. There are reportedly 150 meal kit companies, so the list there could likewise get unwieldy, but I put in some editing notes to ask that contributors not add any company to the list unless there is a) a Wikipedia article on that company or b) significant indepth media coverage in at least one reliable notable third party publication. Companies that already have their own articles are wiki-linked, and companies with coverage but not an article (yet) are just sourced with that coverage. This acts as a stepping stone and creates three tiers of companies, only two of which appear on the list. So correspondingly non-notable MMA organizations would not be added. Once the list gets too long, it could be spun off as a standalone list. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:19, 5 September 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)}}} 18:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a directory-like entry on an entity with not indications of notability or significance. The article consists of trivia such as:

In July it was announced via social media that the AFC had signed a deal with the University of Alaska Anchorage campus arena Alaska Airlines Center for the 2017-2018 fight season!

The merge / redirect would not be appropriate in this case, so delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User RadioKaos has demonstrated that the promotion is noteworthy due to the fact that it's been written about in media and that it's attendance is notable enough to put it level with other acts from different media. I don't think this warrants a deletion, if people are upset about the page, then a compromise could be to create a list of North American MMA promotions.Egaoblai (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Routine sports coverage in the local paper is insufficient to show notability. Crowd size does not prove notability, or every major college football game would have an article. No one has shown any significant coverage in any sources, much less the multiple ones required by WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:SPIP per HighKing. And, as Papaursa points out, the size of the event doesn't necessarily impact notability. Ifnord (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little too blatant that just about everyone else here has come to this discussion with their mind already made up. Among the non-routine hits found in the links I provide above, there are multiple stories which refer to their attendance levels as being significant among local events in general. There is another story, by the Associated Press and not a "local yokel newspaper", which devotes several paragraphs to AFC's role in the athletic commission issue. This is coverage by reliable sources which demonstrates their impact on the real world, a place which some of you ought to try experiencing sometime. If you're expecting me to take a severely filtered view of few particular sources at face value, well, I can get that kind of POV from their websites without having to see it mindlessly repeated here. As has already been demonstrated with prior AFDs of this sort, you're expecting me to believe that if a promotion existed which consistently drew 50 people to the Muldoon Boys & Girls Club gymnasium yet were quite skilled at manipulating the media, that I'm supposed to pretend that they're "notable" if someone comes along and pulls the "right" sources out of their ass. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage so fails WP:GNG. PhilKnight (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article has been up for about a month and the sources provided are so few. It does not look notable either since if it was, it would have more sources at least.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose we were to break out a new article for Mixed martial arts promotions and merge it there? bd2412 T 02:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss bd2412's proposal
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I changed my vote to delete from merge and redirect and struck my old vote. I revisited this and reviewed the coverage, and based on the limited reliable sources I found, this event does not demonstrate notability, even for inclusion on an article simply listing notable promotions. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:31, 25 September 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. Opinions are roughly split equally between keeping and deleting. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ormideia FC[edit]

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

Fails ~~WP:NSPORT for football clubs~~WP:NORG. De-prodded by page creator without rationale. DrStrauss talk 13:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A team that has participation at 3rd and 4th level of national league system. If I have understand correctly you don't think that teams from 3rd and 4th level of national league system are notable. But why not? This is not happened for other countries? That levels are national. Xaris333 (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It would appear that we have articles on all clubs that play in the third/fourth tiers in Cyprus. In addition, the deletion rationale is completely invalid as WP:NSPORT does not apply to football clubs (from the guideline: "It is not intended that this guideline should apply to sports clubs and teams"). Number 57 09:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the WP:OSE comment below, it would appear that the editor is unaware that OSE is an entirely valid reason for keeping articles ("When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes"). But anyway, a cursory search of Greek language hits for the club's name suggests that there are plenty of sources on the club. This could probably do with a Greek speaker helping out, but I find it concerning that WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS may be in play here given how low down the ladder we allow articles on clubs in English speaking countries. Number 5 7 22:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: I've updated my nomination to correct that. DrStrauss talk 17:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above it plays 3rd and 4th level of national league system .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But, to be notable, the team has to play at the highest level. Four levels down fails criteria. Ifnord (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- for lack of reliable sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail (WP:N). If participation in the 3rd and 4th divisions are considered to confer notability, then I this view is too permissive. In any case, the sports clubs are not covered by WP:NSPORT, so there's not guideline that specifies that 3rd and 4th-tier clubs are by default notable; they need to meet WP:GNG. The other "Keep" rationale is along the lines of WP:OSE: "It would appear that we have articles on all clubs that play in the third/fourth tiers in Cyprus".

The article contains no encyclopedically relevant prose and consists of nothing but a stats table. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No sources have been presented at this AfD; an article should not be kept without sources being demonstrated. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the relevant guidelines as stated above. If people believe the guidelines should be changed, they should establish consensus to change them, not arbitrarily pick off articles one by one. Smartyllama (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: Could you indicate which guidelines you have in mind? I'm asking because it was pointed out above that WP:NSPORT does not apply to football clubs. If you could clarify, that would be great. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is that clubs who have played in a national cup are notable. This doesn't necessarily grant notability to the players on these teams, but the clubs themselves are notable. Smartyllama (talk) 12:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes FOOTYN, has played in a national competition. Seems to generate plenty of coverage, such as this. Fenix down (talk) 11:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets football club notability requirements, having played in the national cup. Giant Snowman 20:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet football club notability, which requires teams to play in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists). It is unverifiable that Ormideia FC has played in the Cypriot Cup, which is the national cup of Cyprus. Failing the sports club notability criterion, WP:GNG has to be met for it to pass notability but I'm unable to locate any significant coverage of reliable sources that are independent of the topic. — Za wl 10:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zawl. Four levels down from the top league doesn't make a team notable. Ifnord (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Low level team that is not-notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent evidence this team has played for a national cup and it is only a low tier team. There is evidence from sources that this team exists but nothing rises to the level notability. Fails WP:ORG and WP:N, which are the applicable guidelines. Nothing in WikiProject Football indicates notability for this team. Hence, it also fails WP:FPL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Quinn (talk • contribs) 18:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia is not a farm for statistics and is not a sports magazine. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete lacks RS. Fails GNG. Primary sources. fails WP:NORG.Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:33, 3 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. ansh 666 05:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alltynex[edit]

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

Appears non-notable, as a game and as a series. There is an interview with Nyu Media, but that is WP:PRIMARY and the other article about it is sponsored WP:PROMO content. Most sources are brief, non-significant mentions besides Hardcore Gaming 101. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Za wl 08:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see this one as likely to be notable, even with only a single English work to be had on the full topic, given its age and the fact its getting a western release after nearly two decades since original release. Since we don't have an article on the original developers, we might reasonably redirect to Kamui (video game) (where it is mentioned) or the re-publishing entity's page at Nyu Media. --Izno (talk) 04:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the refs in Kamui (video game) that one doesn't seem notable either. They could potentially be combined into a Tale of Alltynex article... IF they were notable, which it doesn't seem they are. Ultimately it's probably best that both be deleted. Redirecting to Nyu Media would be a bit unnecessary, since they are merely "a" publisher of the game, not even its original publisher or developer. It seems like it would be a pointless redirect._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - They aren't notable with what we have in English media, is what I'm referring to. There might exist Japanese media with content, especially from the time period near the original release. --Izno (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Given that it's similarly unreferenced on the Japanese wiki, I doubt it. If someone wants to do a deep dive into Japanese sources and re-create the article that is fine, but there is no evidence currently that it's notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete No sources extant. NO RS. Fails GNGDlohcierekim (talk) 02:35, 3 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. defaulting to keep. Promotional concerns can be cleaned up through editing. ansh 666 20:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi Nocivelli[edit]

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

I am having difficulty finding more than passing mentions online. Article is definitely promotional. Fails GNG. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur seems a reasonable indication of notability. Rathfelder (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur is a low-level title, roughly equivalent to an MBE in the United Kingdom, which my father was, but it's two or three levels below anything that would grant automatic notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur is an indicator of notability, however this article needs to be de-PROMOed which would reduce it to a stub. It is unclear whether WP:GNG is met here. Α Guy into Bοοks™ § (Message) - 08:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:14, 25 September 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. czar 03:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blood (Spanish band)[edit]

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

An article entirely sourced by WP:PRIMARY websites managed by the band. No particular improvements have been made and a WP:BEFORE search did not produce any significant secondary sources. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: every (non-RS) article I've found on the band so far suggests that they split up in 2013, so finding recent sources online to show their notability might prove tricky. Richard3120 (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of meeting WP:NBAND and no SIGCOV to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND, and as they have disbanded, there's unlikely to be any coverage in the future. Richard3120 (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. — Za wl 15:59, 1 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. czar 03:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Freire-Garabal y Núñez[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)

The whole article seems rather fishy. The "Society of the Knights of Elviña" has no google hits except for this article. The "Royal Dynastic House of Morris" in totally unknown to anyone except that it has a facebook page; it's probably some fictional country. Likewise nothing can be found at all about the "Royal Institute of Historical, Political and Art Studies Alfonso XIII" or the "Royal Institute of Fine Arts Narciso de Estenaga". The "International Journal of Doctrine and Jurisprudence" which is alleged to have published an article from this person does not seem to exist. The awards which he allegedly received seem made up (again, Knights of Elvina, "House of Morris", etc. --MF-W 13:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "House of Morris" is a royal Welsh family house, not a house from a country called "Morris". Also, keep in mind that not all sources on this person will necessarily be available via the Internet, and that other sources such as printed books not available electronically may cover him. The likely existence of such sources is often considered sufficient reason to retain such articles. But I am not !voting "Keep" here, and have not reviewed the existing sources nor made any effort to find new ones myself. Just pointing out a few things. KDS4444 ^(talk) 23:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The translation into English is clumsy to say the least, but the sources are credible and do corroborate much of this. It is necessary to search on the Spanish terms given in the sources – sure, there is no trace of an "International Journal of Doctrine and Jurisprudence", but Revista Internacional de Doctrina y Jurisprudencia is real enough, as are Instituto de Estudios Historicos Politicos de Ciencias y Artes Rey Alfonso XIII, Real Instituto Narciso de Estenaga and La Sociedad de Caballeros de Elviña. (Note: I see that sources were added after this deletion discussion was opened): Noyster (talk), 10:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I refuted the original argument, but let it go: Noyster (talk), 13:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete still not enough to pass the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep. ansh 666 20:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Geoffrey Banks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable actor lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References consist primarily of single line mentions - lacks strong WP:SECONDARY support. Awards appear to be minor in nature. WP:TOOSOON applies. reddogsix (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Non-notable actor lacking in-depth, this is your opinion. If you google and see that his latest movie trailer has over 6 million views combined his rank on imdb is good his other latest film is in the cinema right now in multiple countrys. References are either whole reviews about him in movies or actual videos. Imdb is the movie data base i trust that alot more the redodgsix. If your not a horror fan fair enough but that doesnt mean your opinion is right. Just google his name and you can see he is worthy of being on here. This is a review from movie pilot one of the biggest film sites on the net.Russell Geoffrey Banks is the real star here, and his performance is one of the finest I've seen in a horror film as of late. https://moviepilot.com/p/whos-watching-oliver-horror-influences/4286920 Maybe the page might need to be altered certainly not deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chezleblanc (talk • contribs)

Comment - You seem to be under the impression Wikipedia "notability" is related to "real-world" notability. This is not the case. The popularity of the movie trailer has no bearing on his WP:N - unfortunately notability is not inherited. The references are with very few exceptions single line mentions of him or reviews of the movies he is in. There is an issue with using IMDB, it can be added to without editorial supervision and unlike Wikipedia, is not subject to correction by the community. If one Googles the actor's name, using quotation marks to restrict the search, there are only 167 entries. Far from all are significant mentions of the search subject. The movie pilot article is a great start. If you can find more like this that would push the article to a keep. reddogsix (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If one Googles the actor's name, using quotation marks to restrict the search, there are only 167 entries. I think your google isn't working I have just googled using quotations Russell Geoffrey Banks and I can see he is on over 100.000 sites same on Yahoo most of them are on film and horror sites.The awards if you're a horror fan they are certainly of note, for example, horror hound weekend is one of the biggest horror conventions. IMDB is the standard for the film every credit has to be approved by the film in questions production.http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3086789/. You can go on to netflix and see a list of his movies. one the links was an interview with the actor http://horrorgeeklife.com/2017/06/18/whos-watching-oliver-interview/. in the cultured vultures review they said Russell Geoffrey Banks completely transforms himself into Oliver. A lesser actor might have turned this very comic character into a caricature. Oliver’s believability hinges on Banks’ performance, and he pulls it off. https://culturedvultures.com/whos-watching-oliver-2017-review/ this was on the magazines horrorfreak news a large horror website Co-writer Russell Geoffrey Banks delivers a wonderfully awkward and pained performance as the title character — which from the get-go had me thinking that he must have studied the work of Billy Bob Thornton as Carl in the Oscar-winning wonder, Sling Blade. With a similar hunched body language and a pronounced under-bite, Banks (who from all accounts appears to be a pretty handsome guy) transforms into a character who has been thrown down at every turn of his life. And once we learn his very dark history (via some drawings he shares with his unnamed cat — I loved this scene), the sympathy for this murderous and odd character begins to seep in. Eventually, you’ll come to like Oliver a great deal. And this is a credit to Banks. Oliver’s not always in a great mood and so Banks offers up several sides to Oliver — portraying this character’s many emotions (heartbreak, frustration, confusion) and all to equally great effect. http://horrorfreaknews.com/whos-watching-oliver-2017-review you will see the same type of interviews on all the biggest horror sites from the last few months.

http://www.dreadcentral.com/reviews/227293/whos-watching-oliver-2017/

https://rue-morgue.com/movie-review-whos-watching-oliver-proves-homicidal-mamas-boys-can-still-get-to-you/

http://www.upcominghorrormovies.com/movie/whos-watching-oliver

http://bloody-disgusting.com/indie/3442296/whos-watching-oliver-trailer-goes-little-mad/

http://gingernutsofhorror.com/film-reviews/whos-watching-oliver

In films such a pernicious cam2cam ghost house you can also see he is spoken about. Obviously not to the same degree because that film he wasn't winning awards for and getting the same attention. With the commercials he has done I just put the direct link to where you can see them.

Also, i would like to point out that the actor's star meter ranking is extremely good proving that he is on 1000s of sites and he is being clicked on by fans. this is from IMDB Could someone "rig" the ratings by visiting an IMDb page repeatedly?

No. IMDb.com has more than 250 million unique monthly visitors. The STARmeterTM, MOVIEmeterTM, and COMPANYmeterTM rankings are based on a cumulative total of more than 3 billion page views per month. Furthermore, we have designed the ranking algorithm so that the actions of one user (or small group of users) have a limited impact; we monitor STARmeterTM rankings for any possible fraudulent traffic generation, and the algorithm is periodically improved to detect and neutralize any attempts to 'stuff the ballot'.

Now as I said the article may need changing but certainly doesn't warrant deleting.I would be extremely grateful if someone with better knowledge of Wikipedia than myself would make the appropriate changes thank you.

Links to to reviews that talk very highly about Russell Geoffrey Banks

http://morbidlybeautiful.com/review-whos-watching-oliver/

http://horrorgeeklife.com/2017/06/13/whos-watching-oliver-2017-review/

http://www.monkeysfightingrobots.com/review-whos-watching-oliver-would-make-norman-bates-uncomfortable/

http://horrorfreaknews.com/whos-watching-oliver-2017-review

http://www.screamhorrormag.com/whos-watching-oliver-film-review/

http://beneaththeunderground.com/film-review-whos-watching-oliver-2017/

https://www.pophorror.com/whos-watching-oliver-2017-movie-review/

http://gingernutsofhorror.com/film-reviews/whos-watching-oliver

http://bloody-disgusting.com/indie/3442296/whos-watching-oliver-trailer-goes-little-mad/

Comment - Google - Go to the last page that has entries for "Russell Geoffrey Banks", the number at the bottom it is significantly less than 100K - 100, maybe 200 hundred - I am not sure why Google shows up this way. As for the actor, granted he is getting some good press, let's see what the community says about keeping the article. BTW - See WP:IMDBREF and WP:RS/IMDB about the use of IMDB as a reference. reddogsix (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reddogsix as I can see you know a lot more about Wikipedia then myself. I would be eternally grateful if you would edit that page so it can stay on here.I am not very accomplished on here so if you could either delete the parts that should go or add the parts that should go on. even if it is a lot smaller but I do feel he is worthy of being on here. I am a horror and film fan and have been following his work for a number of years but this year I feel he deserves to be on here.Thank you I hope you will be able to help reddogsix and this is not asking to much.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has prominent roles in notable productions so passes WP:NACTOR and the coverage shown above adds up to a pass of WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:12, 25 September 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. czar 03:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Aryal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Insufficient independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Promotional article. Previous AfD closed as "soft delete", so we need some real votes this time please! Edwardx (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment should look carefully keeping in mind the previous discussion, no international coverage, could be a delete than keepChrisswill (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indications subject meets notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 27 September 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. ansh 666 05:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Williams (basketball)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Revisiting this since the prior AfD did not receive the proper turn-out to address the notability issue. Firstly, Williams never played a single game on a significant professional sports team; hence he fails WP:NHOOPS. On closer examination of the sources, we find they are mainly passing mentions which fall short of WP:GNG. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator since he did not play in a single professional game. Meatsgains (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A short Google search turned up a couple articles about him that were note already on the page, a rather indepth one in the Japan Times and another on spin.ph. -- Dammit_steve (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the amount of commentary by Williams himself in those examples, I would almost consider them WP:PRIMARY sources. The rest of the sources in the article, as I mentioned, were in passing, not in-depth by any means.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article is messy, but that's true of many articles on Wikipedia. I think Dammit steve's links would traditionally count for establishing notability. Williams didn't write those articles himself; journalists decided which quotations to use in the articles and decided how to construct the narratives. I wouldn't say that most streetballers are notable, but some streetball events, like the And1 tour, had a sizable fanbase. I think we at least have enough evidence that Larry Williams isn't just some random guy posting videos of himself on the internet; he had some genuine fame in the streetball world. Zagalejo^^^ 19:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep- Everything I can find signifies that he is a notable streetball player and pop culture presence. He easily meets GNG. Google results list him as a streetball legend and icon. Just because he didn't play in the NBA doesn't mean he is not notable. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To put another way, I think more people will look up Williams than would look up some member of the 1993 New York Knicks who appeared in one game off the bench. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes it does per WP:NHOOP...and I demonstrated why he does not "easily pass GNG".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per the sports notability page "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines)." That is, failing to meet NHOOPS only means that it does not pass that specific measure of notability. I have found a lot of coverage of the individual and he certainly seems notable to me, and that explains my vote. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:11, 25 September 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) 18:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jayanta Jillu[edit]

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

Poet, Editor, Optometrist, Lawyer, SEO expert, Blogger and Facebook star. No references to substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. Mduvekot (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 18:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 18:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- no sign subject passes GNG.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like blatant self promotion created by a single purpose editor. LibStar (talk) 13:57, 1 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. ansh 666 05:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danson foundation[edit]

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

They may do good work, but there is not the type of coverage that demonstrates notability agtx 17:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 19:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is useful (which is why I began it) because it has considerable resources to dispense and Wiki should be a source for people to check whether to approach an organisation like this. I came across the organisation in the course of other enquiries. It is authenticated by media articles. As for whether it is "notable" - we could mark hundreds of thousands of Wiki entries for deletion is this was the only criterion! Good works are pretty notable, as far as I am concerned! So I plead its cause. Synopticus 29 september 2017

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 19:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. Aside from one article about a disbursement from this charity, there is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a directory of charitable organizations, legitimate or otherwise. That's what sites like Charity Navigator are for and they do it much better than we can. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm sure other stuff exists. I delete it when I can. This subject does not meet GNG, lacks RS, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:39, 3 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. ansh 666 05:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awaken online[edit]

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

Declined WP:PROD. Non-notable book: no evidence of significant coverage by independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. The reviews added are self-published blogs. User reviews on Amazon.com are similarly user generated. While no doubt this book has received some attention from fans, it is WP:TOOSOON for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-published with no WP:RS coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. does not meet GNG or WP:NBOOK in that reviews are not significant enough. Search at Locusmag was unavailing. Worldcat not availing.Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:49, 3 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. ansh 666 05:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Héron[edit]

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

I don't think he is notable enough to grant an independant article. I found just passing references in some books, but almost no information at all. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but tidy up - see the French wikipedia, which has plenty of sources. These are in French. That's OK. Tony May (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~Weak keep~~. Seems he was quite the butcher "François+Héron"+revolution&focus=searchwithinvolume&q="François+Héron". The french article is sourced.Icewhiz (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Revised from WK to K following Smmurphy's mention of Biographie universelle entry and improvement to article.Icewhiz (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added references. PatGallacher (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- He was also a requested article. PatGallacher (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - entry in Biographie universelle seems to pass WP:ANYBIO, non? Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability isn't clear from the article as it stands, but hopefully it will be improved. The references have now been added, which is a real bonus, although without being WP:INLINECITED and with so many, it is hard to see what information is verified and which isn't. However, its notability now seems clear, meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the numerous entries in documented material and the substantial size of the French article suggests this is notable with significant writings on the topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- He seems to have articles in biographic dictionaries, which a normal category for being notable. The problem is that the article is still a stub. ~~I suspect~~ there is more in the French WP, ~~but have not~~ now checked. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:00, 1 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) 18:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Airborn (band)[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability criteria for bands, WP:BAND. Metal-archives and meta-temple are not reliable sources. Recordings have not charted. Mduvekot (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. — Za wl 15:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:54, 2 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) — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kolkata Knight Riders in 2018[edit]

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

Joaquinito01 (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Joaquinito01: You haven't added a rationale for deletion: could you please add one? Mr. MacTidy (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 14:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 14:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 14:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Mr. MacTidy: Reverted 1 edit by Joaquinito01. Joaquinito01 (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. MacTidy. This guy is a vandal. He is running around CSD tagging random new submissions as vandalism and reverting random edits and warning newbies for vandalism they didn't commit. I'm currently following him and reverting edits until someone stops by AIV and bans him (again). — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 14:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: nominator has been indef'ed. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 14:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:G4 -- new version is no improvement over larger previous referenced version. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alrosa Villa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not enough in-depth coverage, outside the single incident of the shooting, and even that was about the event, not the location. Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. Nothing has changed since the first AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - in fact the shooting in itself is enough to warrant its own article, but the bands also mentioned blow this article into full-blown notability. Evangp (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Redirect to Dimebag Darrell#Death. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only two keep !voters aren't providing enough evidence that enough material was written about the topic to justify an article, or that any other notability criterium is met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ckay[edit]

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

nothing notable about his career. No awards or charted songs for the subject to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 13:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 13:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 13:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He was in the news simply because his name was mentioned in a video interview conducted by Pulse Nigeria. The subject capitalized on this publicity by releasing a compilation album, which received negative reviews. As the nominator pointed out, there's nothing special about the subject's career. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete subject does not qualify for a stand alone article on Wikipedia because he/she is non notable and woefully fails WP:GNG. I feel as though this article is written by someone quite close to the subject of our discussion.Celestina007 (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Subject does qualify for a stand alone article on wikipedia because he notable and he's not only in the news because of his name mentioned in see other places his name has been mentioned^[1] --UncleBre (talk) 10:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Yes subject was mentioned in a video interview, that does not make it his first appearance on the news. He was also in the news when he produced what turned out to be one of the biggest songs Miracleby Dice Ailes feat Lil kesh in Nigeria between November 2016 and April 2017--Bhernyy (talk) 11:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suspect sock puppetry from Bhernyy and UncleBre. Aside the identical usernames, the former has not made any edit outside the subject of this afd.—Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This subject obviously fails WP:GNG and the way Bhernyy is excessively pushing for its retention speaks volume. On sockpuppetry, I have these 3 observations

The account UncleBre (talk · contribs) was created on 26 Sept. at "9:22" UTC. Curiously, ONE MINUTE after creation, the "new editor" went directly to the subject of this AfD and edited it at "9:23" UTC.
After editing it, the "new editor" (who, normally should not even know what AfD is, or where there's AfD discussion) head directly to this AfD and expose himself (point 3)
He used the the unconventional Do Not Delete phrase same as the other sock account above. The article should be deleted and these sockpuppet reported to the appreciate avenue. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.pulse.ng/buzz/ckay-producer-talks-signing-with-chocolate-city-new-single-id5924931.html

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. Clear consensus that the list is appropriate though the content as it stands has issues for editors to resolve. postdlf (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of American police officers killed in the line of duty[edit]

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

This article does not have selection criteria. In effect, it aims to be a complete list of the tens of thousands of American police officers killed since 1776. Several problems are obvious. Such a list would be utterly useless unless there were some way of guaranteeing that it were 100% complete. Failing that, it is an indiscriminate list of some of the officers killed. Next, we have several terms wanting for definitions. We do not know what a "police officer" is (look into it, it's a far more complicated question than you might guess). We do not have a definition for "killed in the line of duty". Does suicide during duty hours count? How about off hours but acting in an official capacity? Sources are certainly a problem. The most widely used source is the "Officer Down Memorial Page" which specifically excludes/includes some odd causes. In their opinion, deaths caused by an illness which may have been exacerbated by duty may count as being killed in the line of duty (even if the connection is only assumed and the death is after retirement). Others are excluded, based on the pages opinions of what should be memorialized. (The source is, after all, a memorial site. Wikipedia is not.) Due to the lack of functional selection criteria, the list is unavoidably affected by several types of bias. Recentism is clear, as the page lists roughly 150 killings from 1776 to 2009 and roughly that many per year in 2015, while displaying a graph indicating roughly 300 killed in 1920. In addition to basically copying whatever the ODMP lists, we include any death that someone bothers to add. (Please note the talk page archive is currently messed up in some way that I cannot figure out, hiding various attempts to restructure the list in various ways: defining terms, limiting to deaths in blue-link notable events, etc.

Note: copied from User talk:SummerPhDv2.0#Requesting admin assistance because this page title is blacklisted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Incomplete lists are fine. List of numbers is a good example. The selection criteria are not vague: every law enforcement death is officially recognized as either in the line of duty or not. It's one or the other. Surmountable issues are not a valid reason for deletion. So whatever problems may exist with the sources can be fixed. If the current content is too recent, that can be fixed. If it grows too large, that can be fixed by spawning sub-lists. WP:NOTMEMORIAL says "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements." But this isn't about creating an article on every officer death. Many things in WP:NOT deal with not creating separate artices on a thing, which can be misunderstood to mean whole classes of content can't appear within an article or list. That's not what it means.
WP:CSC in the Categories, lists, and navigation templates guidelines explains that some list member are all notable with their own article, but other lists are simply members of a group, in themselves not notable enough for a stand-alone article.
If poorly sourced entries are being added, well, clean them up. It's not like every other list on Wikipedia doesn't suffer the same maintenance problem. That goes with the territory.
The talk archive issue is now fixed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of numbers, along with hundreds of thousands of other articles, exists. It isn't perfect and should not be used as an indication of what other articles should aspire to. Instead, we should edit articles based on our policies and guidelines.

This article will always fall into one of two categories: 1) An indiscriminate selection of names from a list of tens of thousands (that's what it is now) or 2) A complete/mostly complete list of tens of thousands of names. In either case, the list will be of no encyclopedic5 value. (Limiting the list to blue-link notable individuals would answer this question, but delete 99.5%+ of the list.)

Without [[WP:CSC|selection criteria, we might just as well have a List of people from New York City that includes notable individuals and a few thousand others whose grandchild or niece added them, citing the "Linderhoff Funeral Home Memorial Page". (Limiting the list to cases where reliable sources directly state the individual was an "American police officer" and was "killed in the line of duty" would answer this, but delete 99.9% of the list.)

We do not have and cannot create unambiguous, objective selection criteria. Is a security contractor working for the U.S. in Afghanistan an "American police officer"? Does their citizenship matter? Do their job responsibilities matter? If a cop dies while driving under the influence on the way from lunch to the station, were they "killed in the line of duty"? If they commit suicide were they "killed"? Is any thing that happens during hours "in the line of duty"? Do you have sources for all of those answers or are your answers OR?

I understand the desire to memorialize and celebrate, but we simply do not have and cannot create valid selection criteria and unambiguous, objective inclusion criteria. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source saying an overseas security contractor is an American police officer? If you do, great. I've never seen a security contractor referred to that way. You can raise all kinds of rhetorical quibbles about whether the sky is blue, or is it really azure, or teal, but in the end, if our sources are calling it blue, then blue it is. If you want to contest an entry, then contest it. These are resolvable verifiablity issues.

Surmountable problems are irrelevant AfD. Deletion is not cleanup. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The need to discuss individual cases is a sign we do not have unambiguous, objective inclusion criteria. Law enforcement in the United States applies the term to a wide variety of jobs: various Departments of Correction workers, game wardens, various revenue agents, private security guards, various public safety offices, various port authorities, various private special-purpose district agencies, etc. Saying we can simply argue each of the tens of thousands of cases out on the talk page does not mean we have a workaround for not having unambiguous, objective inclusion and selection criteria. We could have a "List of obnoxious characters in film", add whomever we want and "discuss" any we disagree about. Calling the rent-a-cop at the local mall a "police officer" is in no way equivalent to saying the sky is blue.

If we had a list for each year of 50% of the "police" (using a definition we make up) "killed on duty" (again, we'll make up the definitions), we'd have over 200 lists of several hundred names each. Please explain how any one of those lists would be more encyclopedic than a "List of randomly selected entrees at U.S. diners". I can source that 103.287 is a number. Should I add it to "List of numbers"? - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every single list on Wikipedia has a need to discuss individual entries. The only way to decide if an entry belongs or not is to collaborate with others and find a consensus that it is well sourced and meets the list criteria. This fact doesn't in any way give us a reason to delete any list. The assertion that we "make up" a definition for police or line of duty is as facile as saying we have made up the definition of "number" or "planet". Our sources gave us those definitions. Entries are put on lists of planets or lists of numbers or a List of people killed in duels because the sources tell us the definitions of things. A sophist could question the definition of "people" and "killed" and "duel" and ultimately conclude that no term is definable and no knowledge is knowable. But we are editing an encyclopedia, not having a class discussion in Philosophy 101. If there is a minority view on the definition of "planet" or "police" or any term, WP:WEIGHT gives us Wikipedia's approach to such dissenting views.

Once again, if you want to go to the list talk page and work with other editors to reach a consensus on how we should define "American" or "police" or "line of duty", that would be a constructive part of building an encyclopedia. Improving those definitions or list criteria is a surmountable problem, not a reason to delete. But sitting here asserting these cannot be defined without having ever tried is not an argument to delete anything.

If there were a talk page discussion on these criteria, and it was unresolved, and then the all of the standard dispute resolution options had been tried, and after all that, it was impossible to achieve consensus, that might be an argument to delete the list. I would expect that enough editors could agree on criteria that this will not happen. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Every single list on Wikipedia has a need to discuss individual entries"? Where did we discuss including the tens of thousands of people we apparently could have included at List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States? Personally, I'm glad RBG squeaked by in the RfC on that one. Meanwhile, we have the on-going debate (perpetuated by James Buchanan's fanboys) that we should include Cuba in List of states and territories of the United States, "just because".

No, of course we don't have to discuss individual entries at every single list. With unambiguous, objective inclusion and selection criteria there is far less need for discussion. With unresolvably ambiguous includsion criteria (the game warden had a heart attack while climbing a hill...) and absolutely no selection criteria, we might just as well have "List of American police officers". After all, if we can simply break this one down (once we have even 1% of the possible entries) into shorter lists of thousands of names, we can do the same with that one. Why not? Yeah, we're supposed to have selection and inclusion criteria, but we can simply "discuss" what belongs in "List of yucky vegetables" and which people to include in "List of randomly selected people from New York City". - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The topic is a notable one in the U.S., and many sources should be readily available (at least within the last century). To me the reasons provided seem like reasons to refine the criteria, rather than deleting the article. The first U.S. police force was established in 1838, so it doesn't seem necessary to go all the way back to 1776. Praemonitus (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This goes back to not having a definition for "police officer". The "first United States police officer to be killed in the line of duty", says the article, was killed in 1791. The ODMP, the only source for most of the article, also disagrees, going back to 1808 and 1818 for Deputy Sheriffs, 1825 for a Watch Officer, 1833 for a guard for the Connecticut Department of Correction, etc. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Ignoring the ambiguities of what an "officer" is and what "in the line of duty" means, the issue is that, as it stands, this is essentially a memorial. The overwhelming majority of these deaths are not going to pass notability of themselves, and the level of detail is minimal; the principal source is a memorial itself. As a practical matter, there are already numerous such memorial pages in WP, generally organized around individual departments; I don't see how we need to make one grand union list of them all. Mangoe (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point of WP:NOTMEMORIAL is that we don't keep pages that serve no purpose other than a memorial. You could delete any list of deaths citing WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Such a list might incidentally memorialize officers killed, but that is not all it does. It aggregates the information in the broadest context, showing trends over time. It serves the obvious purpose of filling in the gaps left by lists limited only to major police departments. And we only have a few of those: Honolulu, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles PD and sheriff. We aren't going to create a list for every single tiny department; those entries fall to the main US list. We haven't yet gotten around to making list for most of the large departments. If it is ambiguous what a "officer" is or "line of duty" is for entire US list, then how is it not equally ambiguous for List of Los Angeles Police Department officers killed in the line of duty? The overwhelming majority of these entries are also not going to pass notability themselves. As with List of British police officers killed in the line of duty. We have Category:Police officers killed in the line of duty filled with sub-categories and lists upon lists. The editors creating all of these obviously share the consensus that the terms "police officer" and "line of duty" are sufficiently unambiguous.
It's true we have a lot of data here and it could be organized and aggregated in better ways. The sourcing can be improved. The minimal level of detail hand be improved. Surmountable problems. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not show "trends over time". To do that, it would need to show ALL of the deaths. It will never come anywhere near that. It is and always will be an indiscriminate list of some of the deaths. It does not "fill in gaps", it is little more than a collection of gaps with a download from the biased ODMP taped on at the end. As for the other articles, yes, there are other articles. Some of them are nearly perfect. Some should have been deleted a long time ago. Most are in the middle. If you pick one at random and assume it is a model to imitate, you will copy its faults as well as its strengths. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"it would need to show ALL of the deaths". See WP:SURMOUNTABLE. "It will never come anywhere near that."^{[citation needed]}. "Some of them are nearly perfect." Really? Which ones? Why? How about to decide which lists to imitate, we look only at WP:Featured lists? Say, List of deaths at the Berlin Wall. Isn't "at the Berlin Wall" ambiguous? Do they have to actually die at the wall? What if they are hurt at the wall and succumb later? What if they die 20 feet from the wall? What about 37 feet? So much ambiguity. We'll never agree. Günter Litfin is notable. But Roland Hoff isn't. Neither is Bernd Lünser. Hey, almost none of these people are notable. There are many lists at Wikipedia:Featured lists which don't meet the fallacious criteria invented here. Except Wikipedia editorial consensus decisions aren't influenced by cheap sophistry. We use common sense and let our sources tell us what's what.

Could I ask if the sources for Bernd Lünser are good enough? Yes. Could there be a talk page discussion to decide if Bernd should or should not be on the list? Yes. Is that a reason to delete it? No.

I suggest spending some time with the various advice pages at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid and learning to recognize a fallacious argument. You have failed to cite a valid reason to delete this list. You have not attempted to improve the list criteria, so you have no evidence that finding consensus for better list criteria is impossible. Why don't you try and then come back after that? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by the quality of my sophistry. Yes, to show "trends over time" (other than imaginary trends) it would need to include every death. The current article shows a VERY clear trend: Prior to 1900, the number of officers killed is in the range of 1 every 10 years, climbing to 1 a year for most of the 20th century, with the rate beginning to skyrocket in 1995. That is a trend over time. Sure it's surmountable, by building a complete list of every "American police officer" ever "killed in the line of duty". Before pointing to another article that exists and adding more personal attacks and suggesting that I have not tried to address the indiscriminate nature of such a list, please consider NPA and the article's talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, BUT only officers with articles. This is an appropriate list, but including everyone does smack of WP:MEMORIAL, as well as WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clarityfiend. This is a notable topic, but it is best to limit the scope to only officers with articles. Lepricavark (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but, to be clear, a Conditional Keep) - Agree with Clarityfiend that a stricter inclusion criteria is clearly needed here, given WP:NOT and the guidelines at e.g. WP:SAL. This isn't about notability, but it seems like people are conflating notability of the concept of "death of law enforcement in the line of duty" with "deaths of every police officer killed in the line of duty". I don't disagree that there's a good reason to have such a page, but it's not for Wikipedia. Keep on the condition of restricting it to notable individual examples. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:10, 26 September 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) 19:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa State Chess Association[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This essentially unreferenced article currently has WP:BRANCH issues. Dolotta (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 14:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 14:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 14:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Sophia91 (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Chess Federation. Fails WP:GNG. Per nom, I do not believe there is any need for state chess associations to have their own articles.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Even if it passed, we would have a notable subject with an empty article, since none of it is based on third party sources. Opposed to redirecting as the USCF article makes no mention of this, even via a list. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:03, 26 September 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 Baillieu Library. Merge can be carried out from article history. ansh 666 05:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dulcie Hollyock[edit]

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

Librarian who wrote pulp romance novels "by night." Library named a room after her, won a minor women writers short story prize. Other than that, modern writers take some interest as curiosity. I fail to see any notability, other than as a very minor romance novelist. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 13:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 13:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Librarians who write pulp romance novels "by night" can certainly be notable. However, I cannot soruce this one. feel free to ping me if anyone can.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourced information to Baillieu Library, then Redirect. The information in the article is very interesting and would be of interest to visitors of the library (people always want to know why a room is named after someone in libraries). It's sourced and not terribly long, so let's further condense and move it there and have a redirect on Hollyock's page. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. if th bestthat can be said is that " information ... would be of interest to visitors of the library ", it belongs on the library web site. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per EMG DGG and JohnPL. Domdeparis (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ToThAc (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Baillieu Library - it's a valid search term. Everyone else, read WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:PERNOM please. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per Megalibrarygirl. Montanabw^(talk) 07:24, 1 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. czar 04:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Masahito Osada[edit]

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

Not finding evidence of notability. Only finding one source, which is the one cited. It is not a third party source, and is from the place where he conducts. Other than that, I see a twitter page, but nothing else relevant. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 13:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 13:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence he is notable as a conductor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete lacks RS. Fails GNG. Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:52, 3 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) 19:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Serafino[edit]

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

Too soon. Notability as an actress requires two significant roles in notable productions. While her role in Crowded counts, her roles (that she is "also known for") as "Emerald City Citizen" and "Young Woman" do not. Notability under GNG requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is weak, nothing significant found. SummerPhD^v2.0 12:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 13:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at present lacks multiple significant roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject's roles to date fall short of WP:NACTOR and I'm unable to find coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. gongshow talk 07:50, 30 September 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) 19:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exquisite Knives[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously soft-deleted, then recreated, so no longer eligible for PROD. Borderline significance claims, so I declined the A7 tagging but nothing I found searching the web indicates that this might really be a notable organization or company, fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. So Why 12:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability per WP:CORP, and I could find no significant coverage online from WP:RS. Evidently the article creator had the same problem, as in its present state nearly all of the references are about completely unrelated knife makers or companies, but containing the words "exquisite knives". Creation was the first edit of a new account, and from the tone I'm guessing WP:COI. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 13:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 13:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:38, 2 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 as expired WP:PROD. ansh 666 20:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trabant Coffee and Chai[edit]

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

Short-lived former local business, no assertion of notability. Mentions in local news and blog are not significant coverage and do not differentiate this from other small businesses. Reywas92^Talk 08:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:39, 25 September 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 as expired WP:PROD. ansh 666 20:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caffè Umbria[edit]

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

Local coffee shop with a few locations, but no notability is asserted in the article or sources. A local article covering the opening is not significant coverage. Reywas92^Talk 07:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:39, 25 September 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. Rlendog (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Byrne (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur ice hockey player who fails to meet WP:GNG. Sources in article are just stats profiles or a passing mention. I could not find any others that meet GNG doing a search. Player also subsequently fails WP:NHOCKEY. DJSasso (talk) 12:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 12:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 12:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - was deprodded without rationale a while back. Nom hits the nail on the head. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCOLLATH, and WP:NHOCKEY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NHOCKEY and NCOLLATH, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. The article creator's seemed to have thrown up a number of these, and I'd be interested in hearing his take on what notability criteria he had in mind when doing so. Ravenswing 18:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi Ravenswing - I think they put their rationale on the article's talk page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. He certainly misread the criteria then in place, but that was at least an answer. Ravenswing 01:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough here for NHOCKEY. Montanabw^(talk) 06:03, 2 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) 19:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Baissait[edit]

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

Not notable graphic designer Legacypac (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability requirements for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Domdeparis (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability requirements.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 21:25, 30 September 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. czar 02:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Robinett[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This person is not notable. They have a youtube channel. There is not much in the sources. No significant coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 07:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has significant coverage per WP:RS and WP:GNG with coverage spanning many years and internationally no less. Wired, Der Spiegel, The Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune and Berliner Zeitung are all extremely reliable sources per WP:RS and the coverage from all of these collectively are in-depth with some like the Wired article going into very significant coverage, more so than I've seen as acceptable coverage for other topics that were kept after AfD.[12] The now not-available online article from Berliner Zeitung also goes very in-depth (can be found here in this archive after scrolling down). "They have a youtube channel" is not a proper AfD rationale. I notice that last AfD which was closed as a decisive "Speedy Keep" was in May of this year. Too early to AfD again. --Oakshade (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The pieces of coverage identified above by Oakshade, and referenced in the article, are enough in my view to demonstrate that the subject meets WP:GNG. gongshow talk 06:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Tufnell, Nicholas (2013-11-27). "The rise and fall of YouTubes celebrity pioneers". Wired UK. Archived from the original on 2017-05-03. Retrieved 2017-05-03.
  The article notes:
  
  Paul Robinett -- one of YouTube's first celebrities -- began his YouTube career posting videos as "Renetto", a bizarre and sometimes grotesque character he created to amuse his business partner at the time. Within days Paul was featured on the front page, having amassed hundreds of thousands of views. A later success was his "Diet Coke and Mentos" video, currently standing at 14 million views, in which he suggested he was seriously injured by ingesting large amounts of Coke and Mentos (an American sweet).
  Although these videos amused Paul, he soon realised he was wasting the potential to turn this platform into something more constructive, so he retired his Renetto character and began engaging with his audience.
  ...
  Paul began receiving offers from TV shows, but he rejected them on the grounds that he had the potential to get higher viewing figures than Bill O'Reilly and Jon Stewart put together, "I got the fuckin' internet!" he screams over Skype. For Paul, it's the intimacy and authenticity that YouTube offered that made it so attractive to viewers.Whilst he admitted that the overall quality might not be as good, the authenticity was a key attraction: "Thanks to YouTube, you know me, so who the fuck do you want to get your news from?! BOOM. DONE. REVOLUTION."
2. Tedeschi, Bob (2007-02-26). "New Hot Properties: YouTube Celebrities". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2017-05-03. Retrieved 2017-05-03.
  The article notes:
  
  I think everybody that has a site has contacted me,” said Paul Robinett, whose YouTube persona Renetto has attracted 1.19 million views and more than 23,000 subscribers. Mr. Robinett, who is based in Columbus, Ohio, and frequently posts commentaries on YouTube-related issues, said: ...
  ...
  But Mr. Robinett said he was contacted by a talent agency claiming YouTube plans to share about 20 percent of the advertising money gleaned from each video clip with the clip’s producer. Mr. Robinett said he could not confirm that claim with a YouTube executive.
  ...
  That is what Mr. Robinett, a k a Renetto, is hoping. Mr. Robinett recently posted a video chastising YouTube stars who have bolted to other sites. He said the video was tongue in cheek, though many in the YouTube community missed the joke.
3. "Renetto: Der 39jährige Paul Robinett aus Ohio treibt das wohl undurchschaubarste Spiel mit Kategorien wie Authentizität und Inszenierung auf Youtube". Der Spiegel (in German). 2006-09-07. Archived from the original on 2017-05-03. Retrieved 2017-05-03.
4. Pamperrien, Von Sabine (2008-07-12). "Paul Robinett ist auf Youtube berühmt. Dort heißt er Renetto und kämpft für eine bessere Welt Ein Träumer". Berliner Zeitung (in German). Archived from the original on 2017-05-03. Retrieved 2017-05-03.
  The article notes:
  
  Paul Robinett ist eine Youtube-Berühmtheit. Als Renetto zählt er zu den 100 bekanntesten Menschen auf Youtube. Im wahren Leben ist der 41-Jährige Erfinder von transportablen Hängematten und Strandstühlen sowie eines Fortbewegungsmittels, dessen Konstruktion sämtliche bisher bekannten physikalischen Regeln zu widerlegen scheint. Eigentlich müsste der Stiel mit zwei Rädern ständig umkippen. Tut er aber nicht. Berühmt wurde Robinett aber nicht durch seine technischen Innovationen. Er ist ein Youtube-Evangelist. Ein Verkünder. Aber von was?Renetto veröffentliche am 7. Juli 2006 sein erstes Video. Ein wohlgenährter Enddreißiger mit schütterem Haar, an dem irgendwie alles rund erscheint, ohne fett zu wirken, erzählt mit verstellter Stimme, warum er nicht mehr länger nur fremde Videos anschaut und kommentiert, sondern auch eigene Videos veröffentlicht. Es ist nicht ganz klar, ob er den chinesischen Koch aus der Kultserie "Bonanza" nachahmt oder die Fistelstimme des Schriftstellers Truman Capote. Seine riesigen, runden Augen mit den langen Wimpern schauen dabei wie die von Altkanzler Kohl. Renetto ruft zum Mitmachen bei Youtube auf.
  From Google Translate:
  Paul Robinett is a youtube celebrity. Renetto is one of the 100 best known people on Youtube. In real life, the 41-year-old is the inventor of transportable hanging mats and beach chairs, as well as a means of transport, the construction of which seems to disprove all known physical rules. Actually, the handle with two wheels would always have to tip over. But he does not. But Robinett was not famous for his technical innovations. He is a Youtube evangelist. A herald. But from what? Renetto will release his first video on July 7, 2006. A well-nourished end-thirties with thin hair, somehow appearing all around without looking fat, tells in a disguised voice why he no longer only looks at foreign videos and comments, but also publishes his own videos. It is not quite clear whether he imitates the Chinese cook from the cult series "Bonanza", or the falsetto of the writer Truman Capote. His huge round eyes with long lashes look like those of old Chancellor Kohl. Renetto calls for participation in Youtube.
5. Masterson, Kathryn (2006-10-13). "YouTube all-stars". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2017-05-03. Retrieved 2017-05-03.
  The article notes:
  
  Paul "Renetto" Robinett, 39
  Canal Winchester, Ohio
  Four months after starting to post videos on YouTube, Paul Robinett--known on Web as Renetto, a Moby-looking bald guy with thick black glasses--was recognized in the real world.
  Several people browsing Robinett's Ohio candle store last week asked the 39 year old if he was Renetto from YouTube. He said yes--then promptly made a video about it.
  Robinett is a frequent contributor to YouTube, posting daily. The father of four gets anywhere from 10,000 to 300,000 views per video, though a clip of him eating Mentos, drinking Diet Coke and spitting it all up got more than 2 million.
  ...
  The path to becoming an Internet celebrity was accidental, Robinett says. He was surfing on YouTube with a new MacBook Pro and decided to try it himself. Using the camera in the laptop, he made a video in the character of Renetto, who speaks in a nasally voice. Soon, Robinett was posting more. He's put his family online (including his kids and his dad when he forgot to pick up Robinett from the airport) and stood on his roof to protest world poverty. That was requested by an ad agency, Robinett said.
6. Hjorth, Larissa; Horst, Heather; Galloway, Anne; Bell, Genevieve, eds. (2017). The Routledge Companion to Digital Ethnography. New York: Routledge. p. 325. ISBN 131737777X. Retrieved 2017-05-03.
  The book notes:
  
  When a video is created, the video creator often dominates media discourses and scholarly analysis. For example, early vloggers such as Paul Robinett (known as "renetto" on YouTube) and Bryony Matthewman ("Paperlilies") have rightly been profiled as instrumental for helping YouTube's early success. Their imaginative vlogs about their lives have sometimes received millions of views, and they were active in promoting community in YouTube's early years. Yet, when asked to reflect on their participation, they identify a range of video creation pressures they felt as YouTube became increasingly commercial. Google's acquisition of the site in 2006, the addition of YouTube's partner program, and increased advertising revenues from ads placed on videos were forces that they say complicated their individual video making process. Robinett was quoted as feeling uncomfortable about financially benefitting from the YouTube community that was forming in the site's early years (Tufnell 2013).
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Paul Robinett to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:GNG. Inextricably linked to the history of youtube and its development, and subsequently has received significant coverage over time.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:54, 26 September 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. Seems to be consensus that the subject meets WP:GNG. ansh 666 05:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgette Andersen[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet general notability; was nominated for awards but did not actually win any. Just one reliable source that only includes a passing mention. That sole source indicates she was 17 when she died which is different from age 21 years given in the article. Please see article talk page for further discussion. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment partially copied from article talk page to keep conversation in one place There is currently one reference to the Colorado Springs Independent, which probably counts as a reliable source. It is, however, a mere parenthetical sentence fragment that reads: "a year older than Savannah Smiles star Bridgette Andersen, who overdosed on heroin in 1997". Most searches turn up general celebrity sites like IMDB and Find-a-Grave and the like. There are also some biographies on sites of questionable RS status, including Movie Pilot and Daily Hatch. Her WP:GNG notability is questionable. A claim of "...her internet cult following" is not supported by these searches, although it would be a qualifying claim under WP:NACTOR#2. If there is a cult following, then it should be kept and evidence should be added to the article. Otherwise, it should be deleted. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did a newspaper search and found ~~two~~ three newspaper articles that discuss the subject in-depth. One from 1982 1 and another from 1983 (don't have access to newspapers.com to clip it though) 2. (edit to add a third newspaper article found from 1984 from newspapers.com) 3. A few more passing mentions in newspapers. 4 5 While the subject didn't have a long career, she did receive more than average attention from the press during her career, along with the passing mentions regarding her sad early demise and meets the GNG in my view. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The said newspaper articles and her IMDB page give her enough legitimacy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FSOJM791 (talk • contribs)
Comment IMDb is not considered to be a reliable source. Dan arndt (talk) 09:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Child actress has starred in 21 films. Also, please note that there is some coverage of the subject in Spanish. Subject has often been mentioned in books related to child actor deaths, and there was this controversy of her death being a suicide. Other than that, no notability. Edit: Funny that User:FSOJM791 directly started participating in deletion discussions without any other edits. King Prithviraj II (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDb is not a reliable source, we lack enough reliable sources to show notablility.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not as well known a child star tragedy as Anissa Jones or Dana Plato but Amber Tamblyn wrote a poem about her. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 11:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She seems to have been a notable actress for her period, and GoldenAgeFan1 demonstrated that there are published sources about her. Dimadick (talk) 11:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment she was nominated for multiple awards so her peers must have thought she was notable. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 10:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Award-nominated child actor in a major film of its time. This is a case of pre-google age fame. Subject of more than adequate third-party coverage independent of the subject. Meets WP:GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 02:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As noted, she died before the internet got into full swing which makes it hard to find out about her award-nominated notability in the dead tree era. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With her roles in Savannah Smiles and Fever Pitch, she clearly passes WP:GNG, and her role in Nightmares might also be significant, although I wouldn't base my vote on that, being more problematic. The sourcing isn't as good as it could be, but I think it squeaks by WP:GNG. Throw in her roles in Parent Trap II and A Summer to Remember, and I think its pretty much a slam dunk to keep. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:29, 2 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. Interesting name, though; air charter operations are regulated under 14 CFR Part 135. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IPT135[edit]

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

Non-notable company, only local coverage reporting that "now there is a charter service at our airport". Largoplazo (talk) 11:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reads like a press release; non-notable.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 21:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable charter company. Only brief mentions.L3X1 (distænt write) 01:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete lacks RS. Fails GNG. Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:54, 3 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 10:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Beckett[edit]

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

Non-notable article about a person. Could not find WP:RS online to back this up. Kagundu Talk To Me 08:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Easily passed WP:NCRIC, and is referenced to Cricket Archive. The nominator somehow missed the Cricinfo entry in his or her online search. A very poor nomination. St Anselm (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Agree with above user: St Anselm (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC) --Dthomsen8 (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probable delete - meeting NCRIC is not the same thing as meeting the GNG. We can show that he played in one List A match, 20 Minor Counties matches and one Second XI match. OK, so do we have in depth, reliable sourcing for any other aspect of his life or career which provide "significant coverage"? I'm unconvinced that we have anything other than a statistical coverage of his career. If there was non-routine coverage of him in local newspapers covering Oxfordshire and to Devon then I'd be willing to think about whether he is notable or not as an individual. Given the era he played in, however, I'm not convinced that this will be the case. I'll wait to be proven wrong - I wouldn't object to a reasonable time to find alternative sources being allowed. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete multiple sources are required to pass GNG, especially for privacy reasons when the person is alive. The speedy keep attempts are an abuse of process to reinforce the unresonable rules that make Wikipedia so sports-person heavy in its biographical coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he passes WP:NCRIC. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and the coverage is routine.Now the the subject has played just 1 List A Match in which his contribution was insignificant and has retired now the subject technically meets WP:NCRIC as he has played just 1 Match but the subject comprehensively fails the General Notability Guideline and has long retired thus ending any scope of future contribution or any hope of meeting General Notability Guideline.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete lacks RS. Fails GNG. despite the passion of the keeps. was surprised at how poor the coverage is given the passion of the keeps.Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete – Per this discussion, subject-specific notability guidelines do not supersede the general notability guideline, except in clear cases where GNG does not apply to. As it is the single most recent consensus on the notability of sport bios, I feel obliged to go with the result of the discussion: NSPORTS does not supersede GNG. This really does need to be reflected on sport guideline pages, though, as this can seriously mislead people. The 'weak' is rather because that closure has not been linked or obeyed much, and is not in common use. Also, I will note that less coverage has to be applied for this article to be considered notable. J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Per J947.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 05:17, 3 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) 06:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10 Cents (band)[edit]

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

Band does not appear notable. None of the provided sources are particularly reliable, and most are passing mentions or discuss the studio rather than the band, etc. Obviously hard to search for the band's name, but the sources provided do not satisfy ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Єl Cid. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 14:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find any reliable sources discussing this band in depth, meaning that we can't verify the information in the article. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 12:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources. XFhumu^Talk 16:51, 26 September 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. ansh 666 20:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

501 7th Avenue[edit]

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

Non-notable building. Analogous to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/111 West 33rd Street DMacks (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article doesn't make any claim of special notability for this building, nor is any such notability indicated in the references provided. No interesting historical info is popping up for me on Google, just routine commercial info. It looks like a WP:Run-of-the-mill commercial building and doesn't meet WP:GEOFEAT.PohranicniStraze (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tentatively.
- Note that comparing this article to an already-deleted one doesn't work; I and other AFD participants cannot see the deleted article.
- I think this must be a contributing building in the Garment Center Historic District, based on its location and description of the district at National Register of Historic Places listings in Manhattan from 14th to 59th Streets (so then it would be listed on the National Register of Historic Places) and it might be a NYC Landmark. Unfortunately the NYS historic preservation dept.'s interface to see NRHP documents is quite wonky; i haven't yet consulted the NRHP doc for the district to see what it does in fact say about this building. Others can try by following hints for NYS NRHP access at wp:NRHPHELP#New York. --do ncr am 03:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. Seems like a WP:MILL building. Regarding that it is within the Garment Center Historic District, that appears to be true but I believe the district includes several hundred structures. A "contributing property" would not be notable by itself without meeting GNG. MB 02:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This literally just states that the building exists and sources the fact to the self-published website of the real estate management company that owns it, neither stating nor sourcing anything that could be considered a notability claim at all. And it's not enough to just assert that it's probably a contributing building to the historical character of its neighbourhood — if you can't source any substantive content about the building, your assumptions about what must probably be true carry no ice. Bearcat (talk) 04:08, 26 September 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) 19:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anubhuti kashyap[edit]

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

Very little independent coverage to satisfy general notability.

Notability is not inherited. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:26, 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 10:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON, only been the main director of one short film Atlantic306 (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG as per Atlantic306 it is case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:51, 2 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 Charles Clarke. ansh 666 20:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too difficult box[edit]

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

Looks like it fails WP:GNG with only primary sources supporting the article. Shaded0 (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The OPs criticism of the article as it stands is irrelevant. It has wide currency and is an important political concept: see Google and see news.--Penbat (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Penbat, while you are permitted to participae in a discussion about an article you crated, it is usual to mention in your comment the fact that you created the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless material is purposed into a page on Clarke's book The 'Too Difficult' Box, this concept fails WP:NEO not merely because the sole source on the page are the lectures in which the term's creator Charles Clarke proposed the term in 2014, but because a JSTOR search comes up empty. As a page on a political term, it fails WP:NEO, although it may merely be WP:TOOSOON. However, a page on Clare's 2014 book The 'Too Difficult' Box: The Big Issues Politicians Can't Crack would pass WP:NBOOK. If User:Penbat were willing to convert this page into a page on the book.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article on Charles Clarke. Vorbee (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Charles Clarke or (to second User:E.M.Gregory's point) merge with a new article on Clarke's book The 'Too Difficult' Box: The Big Issues Politicians Can't Crack. The term does appear to have entered the British political lexicon, but hasn't gained enough traction and general use to warrant an article by itself. Eloquai (talk) 15:38, 25 September 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 though I don't think G5 is applicable - the creator of this article, which has its differences from the previous one, doesn't seem to have been investigated as a sock, at least yet. ansh 666 20:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roberta Ginevra Tirrito[edit]

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

PROD contested. Non-notable model and the sourcing links to primary source interviews with her or modeling shoots of her. Neither of which is the coverage required by WP:N, which requires substantial coverage in intellectually independent secondary sourcing. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Speedy delete as a G5. See Roberta Tirrito and the massive spam campaign that came from Paolamont. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 27 September 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. after improvements to the article. ansh 666 20:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flying glass[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the article isn't about the phrase, it's about the physical phenomenon as a hazard. – Uanfala 11:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 11:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article begins "Flying glass is an expression commonly used to mean..." I'd say the Afd nomination applies. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTDIC, which is implicit in the deletion rationale, has to do with articles' subjects, and not with the particular way their first sentences happen to have been worded. – Uanfala 20:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed but I just don't see anything more than that, at in this time. I'd be willing to revisit my !vote if someone can develop a bona fide encyclopedia article on the subject of flying glass, which I rather doubt. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't say notability is impossible, but this article does not show it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable to anyone who has been seriously injured by flying glass, and to the attending ambulance and medical staff. The article needs to be expanded to describe the injuries that it causes. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Plausible search term, more than a WP:DICDEF, could do with some more bluelinks. Narky Blert (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Right up there with sharp stick, blunt object, too hot coffee and the million and one other routine dangers. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there are Puncture wounds, Blunt traumas/Blunt instruments and Scalding. – Uanfala 23:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, there's some relevant content at Blast injury#Secondary injuries but the two topics don't meaningfully overlap. – Uanfala 23:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With a simple WP:BEFORE style search I was able to quickly find and add three significant book references to the article. This is an important consideration building and vehicle design, in risk assessment, and in forensic investigations. With multiple RS added and more remaining to be used from the literature, this topic passes notability per WP:GNG. --Mark viking (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as expanded. The case is obvious now, unless someone comes up with a meaningful merge proposal, but I can't see a suitable target. – Uanfala 07:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that it has been expanded. XOR'easter (talk) 15:58, 28 September 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. ansh 666 20:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thibaud Elziere[edit]

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

Delete Fails the criteria for notability. References are not intellectually independent and rely almost exclusively on PRIMARY or sources connected to Elziere. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:11, 27 September 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) 19:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Majella O'Donnell[edit]

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

Not notable on her own. Having a famous spouse is not enough for notability. JDDJS (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- lacks WP:BIO --EC Racing (talk) 16:21, 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 10:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a few TV apparences, and 2 songs, is just not enough for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 26 September 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. ansh 666 05:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The same person was the subject of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pavlo Grytsak closed on January 5, 2017. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlo Hrytsak[edit]

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

There is some coverage in passing, but this is essentially a CV of a non-notable individual. There is no in-depth coverage and no claim for notability (no, being involved with organizing of Eurovision does not grant auto-notability). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 09:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 09:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable media producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete lacks RS. Fails GNG. Not LinkedIn Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:00, 3 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 Alternative 4#Discography. czar 04:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Brink (Alternative 4 album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. No coverage in reliable third-party sources. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 05:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The only significant coverage I could find was this review from 'LOUD' magazine, which looks potentially a reliable source (although I'd never heard of it before). --Michig (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alternative 4. Aside from the one review found by Michig, search results only turn up album listings, release announcements, lyrics sites, etc. There's one or two other webzine- or blog-style reviews, but nothing that seems a WP:RS. No other evidence passes WP:NALBUMS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:28, 2 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 both as duplicate articles with titles that are unlikely search terms. ansh 666 05:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Full results of the South Australian state election, 2014[edit]

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

This nomination also covers:

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

These two pages needlessly duplicate information better covered elsewhere. The tables themselves can be found in dedicated pages for the lower (2014, 2010) and upper (2014, 2010 houses, as well as at the main election pages (2014, 2010) - there is slightly different formatting in some cases but this is insignificant. The maps can also be found at the main pages, while the order of election information is conveyed on the dedicated Legislative Council pages (and the table here could be added there without much difficulty if people are really attached to it). I was originally looking to redirect these but I don't think there's a clear target and it's not a likely search term, so deletion would be the better option. Frickeg (talk) 07:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Frickeg (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Superseded format article that doesn't have an easy merge target. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete duplicate of identical content elsewhere. oppose merge/redirect as unlikely search term "full results". LibStar (talk) 01:13, 26 September 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. ansh 666 05:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Sexorcist[edit]

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

This album fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. One could argue the LP was self-released as the artist owns the label. I realize his brand of rap music is not particularly mainstream but the album still needs to be significant to the genre, found on a national music chart, or covered by reliable secondary sources -- failing on all counts. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence in article or in searches of significant coverage or otherwise passing WP:NALBUMS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete lacks sufficient RS. Fails GNG. Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:04, 3 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, consensus appears to be that the references - even if genuine - aren't substantive enough on the topic. There is also the concern that the article is unduly promoting fringe viewpoints. Having articles published alone is not a criterium of notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Shah[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not sufficiently notable (esp. lacking RS coverage). Delete and salt. Alexbrn (talk) 04:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article is strongly suggested since the references mentioned are genuine. Limca Book of Records is a verifiable source and so are the articles on Sify.com and Rediff.com. Additionally his articles published in the Journal of Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians, USA are a strong evidence of his written contributions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohanpednekar38 (talk) 11:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)— Rohanpednekar38 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Delete. Shah is a charlatan preying on ignorance and gullibility. He claims to have an MD (Homeopathy), an oxymoron because no accredited university provides such a degree, which dishonors the rigor of a true MD. The article contains weak, non-expert, one-sided sources, and is a disguise behind apparent research to blatantly promote his online business at https://www.askdrshah.com/online.aspx where an "interview" begins with step 1, "Make payment". I removed this personal website per WP:ADMASK. The article should be nominated for speedy deletion per WP:CSD under numerous criteria, including "unambiguous advertising" and "blatant hoax". --Zefr (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was AfD'd in 2014, and nothing notable has happened related to him since. Natureium (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because he seems to be notable - and as mentioned above, there are verifiable sources. Since he is promoting online homeopathy treatement there is nothing wrong in it. He has done a lot of research in homeopathy and a doctor like him deserves a wikipedia page. I think we should consider his contribution. --Divshirsat12 11:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shah gets a few mentions in press but in these instances is not the main subject of an article, e.g. coverage of publication of 27 patients with HIV given a homeopathic treatment who did not get better. Notability has not been demonstrated when judged against WP:NACADEMIC or WP:BASIC. In addition to this, WP:FRINGEBLP applies here. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this physician is notable with many publications Pooja bhatiya 16:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)— Pooja bhatiya (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - other than the creation of another promotional article.[reply]
Delete - Cannot find references in large papers like The Guardian. There also is an issue with the article and its sources. These claim that homeopathy is medicine, that new effective vaccinations can be derived from "nosodes" etc. If these were proper pharmaceutical procedures, they should not be called homeopathy and the material used should not be called a nosode. We do derive vaccines from deactivated virus cultures today but the virus is never called a nosode. Also, if looking closely at the source, it does say anyway that this is experimental and has not been demonstrated to show any results. Perhaps that if it did and this was a significant, well documented event, the relevant articles on those conditions would also refer to these promising treatments. —Paleo Neonate – 21:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another promotional article on a non-notable physician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sufficient refs and promotional. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:39, 1 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. Clearly improper to have as an article. bd2412 T 21:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities in the North East and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands by population[edit]

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

This page is redundant as List of cities for every Indian Sate is covered separately. Northeast India includes states like Assam etc., for which individual pages, such as "List of cities in Assam by population" and others would suffice. AnjanBorah (talk) 03:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, delete. - Chandan Guha (talk) 04:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is an illogical conglomeration for no good reason. Why do islands off Indian's souther coast get grouped with the land-locked north-east states of the nation?John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:10, 28 September 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. postdlf (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of English writers (A–D)[edit]

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

A complete duplicate of List of English writers. Appears to be an attempt at a split, but no effort has been made to make the rest of the pages in the split for years, leaving it a mere copy and paste duplicate. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the original list is massive. I'd support a split by alphabetical blok. Ajf773 (talk) 07:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and create more subdivisions of List of English writers: it makes perfect sense to split a massive list into more manageable sections (see WP:SIZESPLIT). There is no good reason to delete a list that helps Wikipedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I support a keep and split. A split was discussed at Talk:List of English writers, but opposed at that time. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:14, 25 September 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. postdlf (talk) 01:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scottish science fiction writers[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because they fall under the same type:

Appears to be a totally redundant list with the category they are part of without any additional value. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep argument is invalid per WP:NOTDUP. A valid argument for deletion should be advanced by Zxcvbnm or the nomination withdrawn or closed per WP:SK criterion 1. Jclemens (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Scottish writers can include those people as well (and does, with abbreviations), so this appears to be a particular example of overlistification. There does not appear to be a need for more specific lists that merely duplicate content. There are very few other similar lists by nationality that get this specific._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if this, and the other lists that have been nominated are merged into List of Scottish writers will it make that list unwieldly? i suggest it will not. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. Mais oui! (talk) 08:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (possible Speedy Keep) - no valid reason for deletion has been given — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Jclemens and Rhododendrites. -- Gpc62 (talk) 06:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Looks legit to me. No real valid reason for deletion. Ajf773 (talk) 10:13, 1 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. Redirects at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medical yoga[edit]

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

Article has been tagged as advertising, unnotable and unreferenced for 6 years. Violates WP:CORP standards and includes commercial pseudoscience that is not medical. There are thousands of blends of hatha yoga. The notability of this one is not established. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 03:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced failure of WP:V. The topic may be notable - I see some articles/books about this - but this page deserves WP:TNT due to WP:V failure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 09:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Agreed. Seems to me it's hard to establish what exactly the phrase "medical yoga" refers to. In my searches I find it's being used to refer to all manner of research but in each case it's something quite different. The article doesn't represent this dispersion of usage and it doesn't appear to actually be an umbrella term at all when I dig deeper. Rather it's an approximation phrase to give context to the research being done. The article seems to be more tended by someone wanting to advertise their particular commercial activity in medicine and yoga. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 08:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since the creation of the article in 2010 it has only contained pseudoscience, unverified claims or advertising. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yoga as exercise as the better article on this topic. I have to agree the current article is largely promotional and unverifiable. But there has been research done on the therapeutic benefits of yoga from an exercise POV and Yoga as exercise is a fairly well-referenced, start-class article on the subject. Medical yoga is a plausible search term, so I think a redirect is warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unverifiable pseudoscientific advertising. There may be a possibility of a neutral article, but right now, there is no salvageable material. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 12:58, 26 September 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. postdlf (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of colleges affiliated to Gauhati University[edit]

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

Not encyclopaedic Rathfelder (talk) 11:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is an encyclopaedic list, similar to List of colleges affiliated with the University of Delhi. In India, major universities have constituent colleges which are affiliated to it. A list of such colleges is a valid information to include in an encyclopaedia. The Gauhati University is a major public university in Assam (Northeast India) and it has 326 colleges affiliated to it. So it makes sense to keep a list of these colleges.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDIRECTORY Neither this, nor the one about the University of Delhi gives us any useful information. If there is a significant relationship with the parent university the information should be in that article. Alternatively these colleges could all be put into a category. That would be more helpful and easier to update. Rathfelder (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't apply in this case. There is a featured article Colleges of the University of Cambridge which is analogous to this. It is a list of colleges in Cambridge. It is true that they have added some more information and created a table. That can be done here as well. But is there a need to delete this article?--DreamLinker (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LISTN. We simply do not need to know every single college (especially the hundreds that aren't notable) affiliated with the subject college. Ajf773 (talk) 07:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It fulfils WP:LISTPURP particularly for navigation purposes. It can be improved and a table can be added with details such as founding date of the colleges. See Colleges of the University of Cambridge which is analogous to this.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not even close to that article and there is very little navigational content as well. Ajf773 (talk) 05:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it can be improved. Indeed the locations of the colleges can be mentioned. They can be grouped by the subjects taught. A table can be added with the foundation dates of the college. Do you think that this article cannot be improved at all?--DreamLinker (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More independent sources, just one or two primary source isn't good enough. Ajf773 (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 02:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poorly referenced and of little notability. What does it mean 'affiliated'? We should delete all other articles in related categories (Category:Lists of colleges affiliated to universities in India). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 15:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Universities in India are usually comprised of "affiliated" colleges which are comparable to constituent colleges, as DreamLinker mentioned. There is no reason to delete the page. However, it really needs more sources and prose. It would not be appropriate to list them on the university's main page so a sub-page is necessary. Also, since when is notability applied to universities, Piotrus? Malayy (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands this is a directory article, containing no useful information about these colleges. There is not even an explanation of what "affiliated to this university" means. There is a perfectly good Category:Colleges affiliated to Gauhati University. What does this list add to that? Rathfelder (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On second thought, the scope is quite large for this article. That the and the lack of wiki pages for almost all of the affiliated colleges, it does appear more as a directory than a detailed informative list. Whereas the University of Dehli is organized more evenly into 77 colleges, the affiliation seems a bit weaker here. Not sure about the rules in that regard though. Just a thought. Malayy (talk) 00:06, 1 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. czar 02:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juice Box Job Scheduler[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a notable software package; only primary references discuss Juice Box and no other references found. Page was previously deleted at AfD (for porn-link spam which isn't in this version), so no PROD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS references. The independent refs are a microsoft page which doesn't mention Juice Box, and a personal blog which does not meet WP:RS. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. As above, this was previously deleted. Dialectric (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article created by the same editor who created the previous deleted version, and containing no sources which address the problems identified in the previous deletion debate. The article text merely describes features and contains no claim to encyclopaedic notability. Nor are my searches finding better. Fails WP:NSOFT, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 11:25, 30 September 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. czar 02:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Korbut[edit]

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

Résumé-toned WP:AUTOBIO (creator's username was "Sashahost") of a person whose claims of notability as a journalist are referenced almost entirely to content where he's the bylined author and not the subject. Nothing here passes our subject-specific notability criteria for journalists, none of the sourcing evinces a WP:GNG pass, and even if the article did meet the requirements he still doesn't get to write it himself. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 01:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for lack of WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:43, 28 September 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. Speedy deleted by Primefac, CSD G5 Creations by banned or blocked users. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leysus[edit]

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

I can find no in-depth coverage to show that this person meets WP:GNG, and he certainly does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 20 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) 01:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While not ideal by any standards, "most likely fails WP:NOTABILITY" is a valid argument for deletion, and that indeed seems to be what should be done here. ansh 666 20:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GLAM TV[edit]

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

Badly-edited, most likely fails WP:NOTABILITY TP ✎ ✓ 15:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 00:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@L3X1: Please don't relist AfDs such as this one. You don't need permission from a !voter to know that there is no argument for deletion here. Unscintillating (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So it's everyone but L3X1 can relist AfDs now, is it?? I don't even know what the last half of your above post means. The nomiantion rationale is not very strong. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've confused myself. You're saying that is a weak rationale as well? That has very little to do with relisting a week old unattended AfD. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing about a "weak rationale", those are your words. Perhaps in your case, it helps if a !voter tells you when there is no argument for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, WP:NPASR No argument for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Completely unsourced, no sources forthcoming in Google Books or other searches. Not mentioned/sourced at University of Glamorgan, so not worth the redirect there either. czar 02:51, 2 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. postdlf (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of comedy features of the Stephanie Miller Show[edit]

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

A list of trivia and inside jokes, mostly supported with primary evidence from YouTube etc. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable trivia. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article was originally created many years ago (not by me). I added a bunch of primary sources to support the content. If this type of article does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for an article, so be it. Dpurcyhoff (talk) 02:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dpurcyhoff: When the page was created or by whom has nothing to do with this proposal, it's all about content. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree. I was just point it out.Dpurcyhoff (talk) 02:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Page was created due to the excessive length of main article at the time. I'm surprised it survived this long. Shinerunner (talk) 20:22, 27 September 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) epicgenius (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Orthodox Churches North America[edit]

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

This is an indiscriminate, as well as unnecessary, list. By the virtue of existing on Wikipedia, all the listed churches are "notable". Also see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 25#Category:Notable Orthodox Churches North America. epicgenius (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. epicgenius (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not WP:INDISCRIMINATE, clear inclusion criteria, reasonable topic. Nothing wrong with this that can't be improved with editing. Jclemens (talk) 09:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jclemens: It needs a lot of work before it could be published. I can also suggest that this be moved into the draft namespace, but two churches is not enough for a list that supposedly talks about all notable orthodox churches in North America. epicgenius (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, we don't use article titles containing the word notable, so at the very least the title should be renamed. Secondly, a more comprehensive list already exists for a certain part of North America: List of Orthodox churches in Toronto, which appears to be one giant linkfarm. Ajf773 (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ajf773, can you suggest language that, without using the word "notable" would limit a list to historically and/or architecturally significant buildings? 18:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

We simply change the name to List of Orthodox Churches in North America and apply a clear inclusion criteria to only include list entries with articles as per WP:WTAF. But as we have a more comprehensive list for churches in Toronto then this list is basically surplus to requirements. Ajf773 (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good solution, but this list needs a lot of work, to the tune of at least twenty entries for the U.S. alone. epicgenius (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That example is why I am afraid that the list would just grow to an indiscriminate list of Orthodox churches in the entire continent. If that's just one city, then we could have a much bigger problem for a list about the continent. epicgenius (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You keep using that word, indiscriminate. I do not think it means what you think it means. Jclemens (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I do. It's not "discriminating", or choosing carefully and using judgment. I think it is perfectly appropriate in this context since there is a gray area between churches that have articles, and famous churches that are one-of-a-kind for some reason. People have a tendency to confuse the two. epicgenius (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but tweak parameters for clarity of definition. I'm looking at Category:Lists of churches and at Category:Lists of churches in the United States. It's a pretty eclectic set of lists, and some have pretty vague criteria: List of oldest church buildings, a list that includes extant buildings, said-to-have-been-built-on-the-site-of-on-older-building, and "there's a legend that....". Clearly we could have a List of Orthodox Churches in the United States, an orthodox version of List of Anglican churches, List of Catholic churches in Austria, or the list of Friends meeting houses in Pennsylvania. And we could have a List of Orthodox churches by notable architects or a List of oldest Orthodox churches in ... Or a List of historically designated Orthodox churches. As I see it, article simply wants a little stiffening of the definition, but I think historically or architecturally notable is getting close and could be tightened. And I do want to thank the article creator, I had no idea Frank Lloyd Wright had designed an orthodox church; it looks like a flying saucer about to take off for heaven, and I love the neo-Grec blue dome.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: a topic expert on notable buildings. Don, how do we go about defining a list to restict it to architecturally and historically notable buldings?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks for the ping and the vote of confidence! Yes, it is valid to have a list of Orthodox churches in the United States, and No, it is not hard to keep such a list under control. The two entries were Greek Orthodox ones, and actually there needs to be a list of Greek Orthodox ones in the U.S., and I just edited the article into that direction and may boldly move it to new title List of Greek Orthodox churches in the United States. Already existing are List of Russian Orthodox churches in the United States and List of Coptic Orthodox churches in the United States. These are indexed on navigation template ((Lists of religious worship places in the United States)). There are also world-wide lists of Russian Orthodox ones and Coptic ones on ((Lists of religious worship places)). World-wide List of Greek Orthodox churches is currently a redlink but should be created and link to this U.S. list plus the Canadian list mentioned above.

Some years ago it was more difficult, but now a list like this is quite easily managed; some language at the top suggesting this is meant for notable churches such as ones listed on the National Register but allowing for churches (including churches as congregations and/or as current or former buildings) suffices. Obviously a church which is individually notable (has a separate article) can be included. I also support there being redlink items (including several NRHP-listed ones that I just added) where there is a supporting reference or two suggesting notability. I also support "blacklink" items about churches that may not ever need a separate article but which seem "list-item-notable" at some lower standard including that there must be sources about them. I edited at the article a bit just now. I added 15 or so NRHP-listed ones. Concerned persons here are welcome to watchlist the list-article and participate in future Talk page discussions of the notability of individual entries that might get added in future years.

All concerns stated above by others seemed reasonable, and it seems all are participating in good faith, this is good to see in an AFD. I hope/trust this additional information and editing that I am doing at the article address all parties' concerns. Knock on wood maybe everyone can come back and agree and this can be closed early without requiring more editors to get involved. Cheers, --do ncr am 20:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like the expansion. I suggest moving the page to only cover Orthodox churches in the US, since that's the current scope of this list. I'll withdraw the AFD, since the page is more encyclopedic compared to when I nominated, and a more comprehensive list rather than just two list entries.

Also, and unrelated to this AFD, the list needs references. I supposed they can be added afterward. epicgenius (talk) 20:58, 25 September 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) 19:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SKIES (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. No refs. Brand new band. No coverage. scope_creep (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced claims could not be verified with Google search. The only results are the usual user download sources. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON at best. ShelbyMarion (talk) 10:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:58, 2 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.