The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:N and WP:ONEEVENT. Her only claim to notability is a TED talk; nearly every source cited is either about the TED talk, or is her own writing. She has done some scientific research, but it doesn't meet the criteria for WP:ACADEMIC. SMDWiki (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one TED talk does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I did a Google search and the results are mostly her own websites/social media, and stuff about the TED talk. I agree that the TED talk doesn't make her notable and that the article should be deleted.SonOfSauron (talk) 06:09, 16 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. There isn't consensus that this is in fact crystalballing; several people argue that sources indicate that this is likely to happen soon and are covering it already.  Sandstein  09:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The existence of this article violates WP:CRYSTAL. That page specifies that future events should only have articles 'if the event is notable and almost certain to take place'. While it is certain that the UK Conservative party will have another leadership election at some point, there's no fixed schedule for doing so, and currently there is no vacancy. Theresa May has declared that she intends to remain as leader until the next general election, meaning the next leadership election may not be until 2022 or later. While there has been plenty of media speculation about if and when she might resign or be replaced as leader, it seems to me that there's no need for an article on the next leadership election until it is actually called. (Or, by fairness, we ought to have Next Labour Party (UK) leadership election as well; that's currently a redirect, but it was previously deleted at AFD on the grounds of being pure speculation, just like this is.) Robofish (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL. I think the nomination sums it up pretty well. I have to say I came across this page a little while ago and was tempted to nominate it for deletion myself as the entire article is just speculation --Crasstun (talk | contributions) 00:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Both per WP:CRYSTAL, and because the article as titled would become obsolete whenever the next Conservative Party leadership election actually took place (since it would no longer be the "next" election, but the just past one). PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:CRYSTAL as I understand it doesn't prohibit this article. This is a notable event that is 'almost certain to happen'. As WP:CRYSTAL explicitly says, 'dates are not definite until the event actually takes place', so I don't follow why a lack of a set timeline means that this article shouldn't exist. PohranicniStraze's argument that the article should be deleted as if it stays it will need its name changed doesn't make sense to me: what about Next United Kingdom general election? What about other election articles without fixed terms? To quote WP:CRYSTAL again: 'if preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented'. There is no need for original research because as with the next US Presidential and the next UK general elections, there is a lot of speculation to document and draw upon from reliable sources: the well-documented speculation WP:CRYSTAL requires. Robofish says the same in their nomination at the top. I can't see how deletion is a view based on policy. Ralbegen (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I recognise that we do have other articles about future elections. I would say the difference is that by law, there has to be another general election within 5 years; that is definitely going to happen. But there doesn't have to be another Conservative party leadership election any time soon. I recognise there has been a lot of media commentary about this, but it could always be merged somewhere else, like Premiership of Theresa May and Second May ministry. By the way, I noted that Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2007 was created as far back as April 2006, long before there was any official announcement that Tony Blair would resign[1], so by that comparison maybe this one's OK. But I'd like to see what other users think. Robofish (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL uses the phrase 'almost certain to happen', which I think this election is. The only circumstances under which there will be no Next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election is if May's leadership lasts until the end of the party. There's no reasonable doubt that it is going to happen, and it has received significant coverage, so I think it should stay — and I definitely don't think that it violates WP:CRYSTAL, as both your nomination and all three delete !votes have relied on. Ralbegen (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When the next Conservative leadership has been help, this will have to be renamed "Last Conservative Leadership Election". Vorbee (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We follow reliable sources: that's the basic principle here. We are drowning in reliable sources discussing the next Conservative Party leadership election. That it hasn't been formally called is beside the point. There are events unfolding now and over the last few months that are part of the process and everyone knows it (and is describing it in reliable source publications). The article is not speculation because it is describing manoeuvering and activity happening now. Bondegezou (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep they had a Next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election for the 2016 leadership election. so its quite fitting for they as well have one for this next election. Torygreen84 (talk) 05:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I can see several notable events, the topic is 'quite certain to happen' with reliable references, it would cover the issue of WP:CRYSTAL D8jang (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's trivially easy to do a Google search and find multiple in-depth sources discussing the next Conservative leadership election. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:CRYSTAL only applies to future events where there aren't enough sources to confirm that the event WILL happen by normal means OR if the event is too fat out into the future. And as far as I can tell, this article passes both criteria. ToThAc (talk) 15:26, 18 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. (non-admin closure) Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  19:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Notability and complete lack of sourcing.

Possibly rename to "Staplers Road, Newport, Isle of Wight" which is a demonstrable real road and does probably give its name to some minor area around it. But even then, there's no evident sourcing out there to support even that much. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:GEOLAND as this is a historic area and there are plenty of sources out there. Andrew D. (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you'd care to add some of those "plenty of sources". Because if they aren't there, they don't count. And in what way is this area "historic"? What happened here? Where is that recorded? I don't dispute that there is a long road called "Staplers Road" running out of Newport and such roads do tend to give their name to places, but it needs to demonstrably pass WP:GNG if it's to stay. WP:GEOLAND does not overrule this, as there is no indication that the area has any sort of legal recognition under this name. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the history note this 1866 Ordnance Survey map features the hamlets of Staplers, North Staplers and Little Staplers, as well as the geographic features Staplers Hill, Staplers Heath and Staplers Copse, as well as Staplers Turnpike and Staplers Farm.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the good points made by Pontificalibus, note that, in no case, does WP:GEOLAND suggest that anything be deleted because there's always the option of merging into some broader geographical region. Andrew D. (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If there are sources out there, I'm having difficulty finding them. Searching for "Staplers" alone brings up mainly devices for inserting staples. Searching for "Staplers" and "Isle of Wight" or "Staplers" and "Newport" both bring up mentions, but mostly only for traffic incidents. Not saying that the term doesn't have relevance for locals, but it doesn't seem to have wider notability sufficient to meet WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per this source and the sources linked therefrom: [2]. Also discussed in Hockey, S.F. Quarr Abbey and Its Lands, 1132-1631. p. 73. ISBN 9780718510879.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that using the road's name to describe an area? Or is it claiming that the road takes its name from an earlier name of Stakelhurst or Staplehurst for the area? If so, that would be a good claim for it, but the sourcing is still a bit vague. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure the road would have been named later. The source I gave describes Staplehurst as a parcel of land which was a constituent part of a Manor and then it became a Monastic grange. So it was first an area of land, and by the nineteenth century had become known as a settlement outside of Newport (e.g. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9jsAAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA135 1). For geographic places with sources supporting their historical existence I would tend to err on the side of keep at AfD because it's highly likely that sufficient sources could be found offline in historical documents and archives, should someone be inclined to look for them. If we look to WP:GEO the relevant part would be "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can remain notable, because notability encompasses their entire history." It may or not be a "legally recognised place" at the moment, having been subsumed into Newport, but it certainly was historically. --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:19, 11 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 Buyer brokerage. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Deprodded because deprodder felt I failed to do WP:BEFORE, but I was unable to find any sources to expand this beyond a WP:DICDEF. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- The customary term is buyer's agent. The article is not ready for prime time. In the real world, a single reference from HUD is not enough. The law of agency and real property requires a much deeper exposition. Rhadow (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Buyer's agent exists as a redirect to Buyer brokerage, I see. The omission of the apostrophe would seem to be a reasonable typo for a search term, no? Should we simply redirect? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Buyer brokerage as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 15:18, 5 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) 18:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

YTT fails corporate notability guidelines. A search for sources yields only two links in independent sources, both of which are mere passing mentions here and here. No indication of anything other than a run of the mill company. DrStrauss talk 20:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with opinion of user DrStrauss. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:51, 11 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. It's clear this isn't a straight deletion, which is really the important decision. Beyond that, opinion is pretty much split between keeping it stand alone vs. a merge/redirect to Ben Affleck. MichaelQSchmidt proposed some sources, and nobody refuted them, so I'm going to assume they're legitimate. If people want to continue to discuss the possibility of a merge or redirect, that can happen on the article's talk page without need for further AfD involvement. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Killed My Lesbian Wife, Hung Her on a Meat Hook, and Now I Have a Three-Picture Deal at Disney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

This is not a notable film. The only claim of notability is its relation to Ben Affleck, and WP:NOTINHERIT. In the references, it is described as "a campy student project" and noted that Affleck "did a couple of short films". This is trivial coverage. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Slight merge (just a mention should be needed) to Ben Affleck. Due to the bizarre title and connection to Ben Affleck, some readers may want to know of the film's existence. But the film doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria of WP:NFILM, and IMDb doesn't even list a release date for it. (The film later became available on the Internet, but that must have happened long after the production was completed, because the film was made in 1993.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ben's page - No nobility odd title likely makes it hard to find sources. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Appears to scrape by on WP:GNG, not sure merge is really right. Artw (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ben Affleck filmography. Supporting the deletion of a Ben Affleck film goes against my instinct but it honestly doesn't meet the notability criteria as currently defined. All sources that mention it are primarily discussing Affleck, and while it features the "significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person" it is not "a major part of his/her career" per WP:NFO. Betty Logan (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ben Affleck filmography; not independently notable, per review of available sources. An entry on a list is sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep this silly & bad short film per meeting inclusion criteria of WP:NF. We'd love to have even more, but I believe coverage by Entertainment Weekly SlashFilm,Film School Rejects, Hollywood Reporter, Cinemablend, AV Club, Paste, and E-Online are enough. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources provided by MQSchmidt. The subject of substantial coverage by multiple independently-published sources of presumed reliability, which is to say, "Passes GNG." Carrite (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Michael Q. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I feel is this the better option. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:04, 17 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 merge to Jadwiga of Poland #Pregnancy and death (1399). bd2412 T 13:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Lacks notability, trivial article about a person with no historical importance.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm going to abstain from voting having been the one to decline the speedy deletion tag. The notability of the person is definitely a bit shady, although not enough to warrant an undiscussed deletion. I'll put forth some of my findings here for others to judge:

1. Ref 1 from the article - translated and archived - Here, the wording of the section titled "What was the impact of the birth and death of Boniface and the death of the Queen on the situation of Jagiello?" and some of the content under it appears to point to relevance of the death of Elizabeth. Here the death of Elizabeth is given some importance as destabilizing her father's rule to an extent as he lost his only heir.
2. Secondly, the Elizabeth's horoscope has also had a couple of mentions: Here the horoscope is said to be drawn by a controversial astrologer of the time (which is arguably not a worthy mention) and here the horoscope is called the first "real horoscope" on Polish lands (again, the source is a blog so that weakens its credibility).

I got most of the information above from the sources themselves. There may be more, or perhaps not enough. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 21:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep There are quite a few sources on her. The event itself - the birth and subsequent death (of Elizabeth herself, as well as her mother) had ramifications on Polish succession. I'm more looking at this through the prism of an event than a person.Icewhiz (talk) 09:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Jadwiga of Poland #Pregnancy and death (1399). — Kpalion^(talk) 10:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge into Jadwiga of Poland #Pregnancy and death (1399). The death of the child and the regnant mother in rapid succession does appear to have given rise to something of a legitimacy crisis for the Polish crown for which there are a number of sources and which could be the subject of its own article (see also Jogaila_of_Lithuania#Early_actions) but merging this into the section on her mother would be another approach that provides useful context. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Jadwiga of Poland#Pregnancy and death (1399). Not opposed to deletion. "Elizabeth died at exactly three weeks old" and WP:NOTINHERIT. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (OSE, but...) - In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge we have several editors arguing notability for a fetus who is expected to be 5th in line for the throne at birth, rising to 3rd upon death of Queen and her grandfather - while that AFD may indeed close out as a delete, the child will definitely have an article as an infant (as Princess Charlotte of Cambridge did - actually while she was an embryo). Here we are discussing an infant who has significant coverage (for the period? Super abundant), and who had a significant impact on the succession of the Polish throne and was also involved in the veneration of the mother. We should try to aim for similar standards for historical and current figures - if at all the bar should be lower for an historic figure.Icewhiz (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably merge as suggested. Normally, I would have said that a child who died aged 3 weeks was clearly NN. In this case, I can see an argument that her birth was significant. I am surprised that we can get such a long article on her, but we have. PLain deletion would certainly not be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sources in the article and available through a quick internet search would indicate notability, through her position as heir presumptive to the Polish crown. I would oppose merging because many aspects of this article are not applicable or too relevant to her mother's article (e.g. the prophecy, who she was named after), and because her mother's article is fairly long. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:24, 17 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NMUSIC. Article also requires significant cleanup, if indeed notable. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 02:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The particular "Akademia Music Award" has a bad reputation. You have to pay for your work to be considered. I've seen another case of no-coverage artist here at AfD having also won this prestigious award. Mr. Magoo (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: Busic Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - will come under WP:CSD#A9 if artist's page is deleted. — IVORK _Discuss 04:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per above. — IVORK _Discuss 04:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, fails WP:NMUSIC.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both As per nominators.PRehse (talk) 20:15, 9 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 List of CSX Transportation lines . -- RoySmith (talk) 12:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E&BV Subdivision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject fails WP:STATION, WP:GNG, and WP:NCORP. My BEFORE search showed a bunch of fan sites plus mere mentions but nothing passing CORDEPTH. Spdfile1 refused to allow this to redirect to the article about CSX (the parent company) so I'm asking for deletion. This article was deleted before for similar reasons. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect to List of CSX Transportation lines which says almost as much about this line as the article does. A mass redirection of other minor CSX lines is also in order. Mangoe (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong venue  AfD is not a todo list for AfD volunteers.  As per WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT, content discussions belong on the talk page of the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Hi User:Unscintillating, or others, can you explain more, please? It appears this is an issue about splitting out content to sub-articles or not, which is an editing decision. Is AFD the wrong forum to get consensus to proceed with merging them back in? Perhaps similarly, I have nominated 29 split-out NRHP articles for deletion, in ongoing AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bert and Fay Havens House, where I am getting rocky reception about it so far. Perhaps the problem here and there is that an RFC is needed, different than an AFD? I would be grasping, though, to explain why that would be the case. --doncram 19:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a quote from WP:Deletion policy, oldid=797578780:

===Editing and discussion=== Main page: Wikipedia:Editing policy If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page... Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.

"Editing" includes merging and redirecting, which also have sections at WP:Deletion policy.  I'm not familiar with the merge forum (WP:PAM?), but AFAIK there is no central forum for changing an article to a redirect.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• AfD is not a todo list for AfD volunteers. I understand the sentiment. The counterargument is also valid: An article ends up at AfD after talk page discussion and tags have produced no results -- for years in many cases. The article survived a PROD, removed by an editor who added nothing to the page. AfD, with its time element, injects an element of urgency not available elsewhere. The editor who brings a page here feels she has exhausted all other options. The number of articles deleted here shows that it is an effective tool against unnecessary pages. Rhadow (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of CSX Transportation lines; it's hard to imagine that a 40-mile stretch of railroad would be independently notable, and I don't believe this to be the case, per lack of sources. The entry on the list article is sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete though I'm not strongly opposed to the redirect to List of CSX Transportation lines. If the railroad wants to claim that a route is a different subdivision every 40 miles they're welcome to do so, but that doesn't make each subdivision notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:00, 17 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) 18:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No sources, search for video game sources at WP:VG/RS finds none. Does not pass WP:GNG. PROD removed by author with no comment. -- ferret (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable fan game. Fails WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 21:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Reliable video game source search returns 0 results. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 16:00, 10 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. Alex Shih^Talk 08:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article has been written mainly by a single editor. The editor uses primary sources for all points. Roger Reed is an Oxford academic with no particularly significant contributions beyond that expected from a research professor. No secondary sources are used and "significant coverage" is not established in violation of WP:GNG.

Another Oxford professor Jonathan A Jones argued in the PROD process that h index of 44 ^[1] as per google scholar is sufficient for notability, to satisfy criteria 1 of WP:ACADEMICS, and so is the fellowship of the royal academy of engineering, criteria 3 of WP:ACADEMICS.

Both of these however are insufficient as per WP:ACADEMICS guidelines. h index of 44 in google scholar (38 in Web of Science ^[2]) is not exceptional. Further the guidelines state "Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness." Also the guidelines state "elected memberships in minor and non-notable societies are insufficient." It is unexceptional for an academic to be accorded fellowships in learned societies and fellowship in royal academy of engineering is far less selective than say the Royal Society and is relatively mundane. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roger_Reed for more detailed discussion regarding the guidelines.Johnnysmitha (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)— Johnnysmitha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I find the entire deletion rationale unconvincing. A full professor at Oxford University with 14 publications that have been cited over 100 times each according to Google Scholar, with one cited 2056 times. Even in the modern sphere of academia, this is well beyond what I would expect from an academic with 'no particularly significant contributions'. As is a £187,895 grant from the Royal Society awarded to him as one of its Research Fellows ([3]). --Michig (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Totally implausible rationale for deletion by spa of one day's editing experience. GS shows that 8000 independent secondary sources have cited his work, so passes WP:Prof with flying colors. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Question for nominator. Have you edited Wikipedia before under another account? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Given the mention of Jones, the involvement of Jones in editing this article, and the user name which closely resembles that of Jones, I strongly suspect Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barryispuzzled, a known sockpuppeteer who has a vendetta against Jones. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am also interested in an answer to Xxanthippe's question, but if this is a vendetta against me it's an extraordinarily subtle one. I only started editing this page in response to Johnnysmitha's prod, which came up at Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Oxford/Article alerts. The original article was indeed a bit of a vanity piece, but nothing that couldn't be fixed by a major trim. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, thanks. That's reassuring, even though it leaves the origin of this AfD a bit of a mystery. I'll strike my comment below. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per both WP:PROF#C1 (already clearly demonstrated by Michig) and WP:PROF#C3 (FREng). This seems likely to be a bad-faith nomination against Jonathan A Jones, a long-term Wikipedia editor who has made major contributions to this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per arguments of David Eppstein above, which are pretty much the arguments I used in my original deprod [4]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nominator provides the keep argument themselves; their argument that a very high h-index of 44 and Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering does not meet the respective WP:PROF criteria is at odds with the consensus in hundreds of past AfDs. – Joe (talk) 08:29, 10 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) 18:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lankan presidential election in Matara, 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article provides no content that isn't provided in Sri Lankan presidential election, 2015 and can't be provided in Matara Electoral District. Obi2canibe (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, concur with the nom - this information is available in other articles and serves no vale as separate standalone article. Dan arndt (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nom.It can be covered in Sri Lankan presidential election, 2015 and Matara Electoral District.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:36, 16 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 under WP:G11. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 05:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MRC for Medical and Equipment Trading (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Also serious COI. We are considered as main supplier... Really? obviously written by the company its about. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising; I requested a G11 -- let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:50, 11 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. Hut 8.5 21:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Not notable as a website. Greenbörg (talk) 12:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No sustained coverage found, however it did once have some level of notability -- from The Herald Vol37 ?1-3? Page 262 "Back in December 2004, Bandbaja.org, an online music review website, generated a great deal of ink for providing musicians easy access to a popular forum for their music and videos. The website was adored and publicised in numerous print articles before vanishing...". It's not really a keep with what's visible, but a redirect and mention/capsule-listing somewhere (but where...?) might be reasonable. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- meh, a pretty transient web site; does not meet WP:NWEB. No suitable merge/redirect target and no SIGCOV, so delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Seems to fail on notability. Shaded0 (talk) 18:21, 18 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. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Created as part of paid editing stint. Reads like a CV Carl Fredrik ^talk 21:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: blatant self-promotion. Changed my vote: Mild keep or Merge with Breitbart News. Quis separabit? 23:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: He is a notable figure (managing editor of Breitbart) and he has been covered and interviewed in major sources like the New York Times and Los Angeles Times. See the major profile done on him by the New York Times this week: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/16/magazine/breitbart-alt-right-steve-bannon.html?mcubz=3Avaya1 (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete being interviewed by major papers does not make one notable, notability comes from 3rd-party articles not interviews.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times did a multi-page profile, it's not just an interview. It's profiling his life as well as Raheem Kassam. He also features in third-party news stories, such as when he was duped last month. http://nypost.com/2017/08/22/duped-breitbart-editors-reveal-dirty-work-planned-against-bannons-enemies/ Avaya1 (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There looks to be sufficient sourcing to satisfy GNG/BIO. Being interviewed by major papers -- when the interview constitutes the article (in its entirety or a substantial part), i.e. it's not just a quick comment about another subject or an official statement from a spokesperson -- certainly contributes to notability. If you're selected for an interview by e.g. Forbes or the New York Times that's just about the definition of notability. There are separate things that come into play when using such a source in the article, but it contributes to notability. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, obviously notable. Whether the article was created as a promotional page is irrelevant. Just remove the promotional content and expand with RS (and he has been covered in RS, besides being editor-in-chief of one of the most notable news sources in the US right now). NoMoreHeroes (talk) 01:22, 11 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 merge to (someplace such as) Fujairah#Geography. There's agreement here that this should be merged somewhere, but no clear consensus on what would be the right merge target. The suggestion to create a new article and merge all the similar mountain articles into it seems reasonable, but didn't see any discussion. So, I'll leave this as merge to somewhere, and let whoever does the actual merge figure out the details. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. De-prodded. DrStrauss talk 19:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 19:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 19:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Query Is this a man-made hill? If not then why does GEOFEAT apply? - Sitush (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sitush: whoops, GEOLAND. DrStrauss talk 20:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, that makes more sense. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Merge - according to WP:GEOLAND, the mountain could be notable if there is coverage of the feature other than basic statistics. I've searched English language sources, and can't find anything other than basic statistics and user-contributed data (e.g. peakery). However, I would be willing to bet that there will be coverage in offline sources, but I have no access to such information and we may not be lucky enough to have an Emirati geographer join this discussion. Given that there is a category for Mountains of the UAE, and at least some of the articles there are similarly minimal, could these be merged into the page on Geography of the UAE? If so, who would do that work? Hence: I conclude merge so that even the minimal information does not disappear before the merge happens. Ross-c (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, per User:Ross-c, probably to Fujairah#Geography. --doncram 03:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hmm, there is Category:Mountains of Fujairah consisting of 30-40 articles, at least several very similar one-sentence articles like this one. They may all be merged to one new Mountains of Fujairah (currently a redlink) article which will provide more value than each of them separately, because a table there would provide context for all of them, enabling comparison of their heights and locations and including a ((GeoGroup)) template so that all the coordinates can be seen in a linked Google or OSM map, etc. Apparently Fujairah is the one mountainous emirate in the United Emirates, so covering the mountains seems offhand like a good thing. Or, is there a Mountains of the UAE article? There are list-articles about mountains elsewhere such as List of mountain peaks of Mexico and List of mountains of Texas. --doncram 03:54, 16 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.  Sandstein  12:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of an artist, which just states that he exists while failing to show any evidence that he would actually pass WP:CREATIVE for anything. As always, every person is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists -- he must actually be shown and sourced as satisfying a notability criterion for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He has exhibited in wide range of countries, and his works have been acquired by art galleries in a number of countries. http://www.kunstgalleriet.dk/artists/hussein-tai He has been featured in books. http://www.nisroemer.dk/Hans_Blix_Glasses_book.php There is discussion of him having received an 'Erik Hoffmeyer Prize', but I've been unable to verify what this is. So, it seems that he is plausibly notable, and that the article needs a citation for verification/notability box, not to be deleted. Ross-c (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I noticed in the history that the article had references at one time, until they were removed by Worldartistww, who appears to be acting on behalf of the subject. Mduvekot (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I restored an earlier version that had several good refs.104.163.140.99 (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am not familiar with this guy or his field, so I won't vote. However, I don't think that people need to 'earn' Wikipedia articles. The Notability criteria wasn't created for this purpose, right?Taraella (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, people aren't automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist. A person has to pass a notability criterion, and have the reliable source coverage needed to support it, before a Wikipedia article becomes appropriate — if you can think of a better word than "earned" to express the distinction between "everybody who exists automatically gets an article" and "only people who meet certain specific conditions get articles", then feel free to substitute it in lieu of "earned" as you read and interpret my statement. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I can't find any in-depth coverage. The coverage I see linked in the article seems in Dannish and does not seem like major news / scholarly reviews of his work, and seems like it could be written by him or based on a resume he submitted. As such, he seems to fail WP:NARTIST, through he could meet 4b - that's somewhat debatable. But IMHO that would require a discussion of significance of his work anyway. (Of course, on a final note, we don't demand this from sport bios, which can pass AfD with just a few statistics, so...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete It looks more like a resume than an article on a noteworthy artist. Is Hussein Tai really notable? Maybe later he/she could be, but not right now.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see no substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources, and no significant critical attention. None of the notability criteria in WP:ARTIST are met. Mduvekot (talk) 11:24, 19 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Botanical Beach Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:ORG. sources just prove it exists. found no indepth sources. a few in gbooks are one line mentions that confirm an event was held there. LibStar (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- fails WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE. Wikipedia is not a free means of promotion. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a directory per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. A single establishment in a chain of hotels is not notable.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:31, 17 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, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non notable podcast that fails WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Unable to find any significant coverage on the topic from reliable independent sources. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, fails WP:GNG Videogameplayer99 (talk) 05:43, 16 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. SoWhy 18:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable podcast, fails WP:GNG from what I can see. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. I tagged the article with the notability template last year when I was unable to find any reliable sources that provided significant coverage on the topic. That still seems to be the case. The link farm in article's references section don't actually support the topic's notability either. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would give a presumption of notability to a podcast with 700 episodes. However, I see no secondary references to support that presumption, so I abstain from any !vote. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:04, 17 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. Since the articles are identical, I'm counting the previous AFD's !votes here as well. SoWhy 18:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Recreated by the same editor after deletion (first AfD here) and the article is pretty much identical. We have "references" of two blogs and one local newspaper. All albums self-released and none charting anywhere. This fails WP:MUSIC. Dammitkevin (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as it was a soft delete the editor did nothing wrong in recreating it. Outlaw Magazine seems to be a webzine rather than a blog but not at all sure if it is reliable so that leaves the newspaper article so more reliable sources are needed Atlantic306 (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable band.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 18:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete: as non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 19:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't meet WP:ENT. I don't see any notable roles on her IMDb profile. From M*A*S*H: "Through the series, several actresses play characters named Nurse Able or Nurse Baker"; IMDb says she appeared in 6 episodes. On Quincy M.E. she appeared in 7 episodes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:10, 17 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. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This is merely a college player that never became a professional player. He does not appear to meet the notability guidelines. Firstclass306 (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes GNG with many articles of significant coverage found at nl.newsbank.com. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Haskins was a starting quarterback for two years (1995 and 1996) for a Power 5/SEC (i.e., top tier) team. He received abundant and significant coverage so as to satisfy WP:GNG. See, e.g., this, this, this, this, and this. Cbl62 (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• keep looks like he passes WP:GNG to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cbl62. Even just a quick Google search reveals that he meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC by virtue of his time as a starting quarterback at both Kentucky and Rhode Island. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete college football player with no more than routine coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The article states, "at graduation [he] had passed for more yardage than any player in Kentucky high school history."  Further, WP:GNG doesn't have a concept of "routine" being a restriction, nor should it, so routine coverage is evidence of notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Feature articles like those shown are WP:NOTROUTINE and are far beyond the scope of box scores.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep subject has received sufficient coverage to pass GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  Notable as a high school athlete, and notable as a college athlete, too.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:01, 10 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. SoWhy 18:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No coverage found. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 07:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this autobio apparently written by the subject himself - see User:Awan2275. appeared in only one TV programme so far which doesn't qualify him to have an entry on WP. also, not much coverage in RS. --Saqib (talk) 08:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Despite its WP:PEACOCKery, the article does not demonstrate the subject's encyclopaedic notability, whether as a hotel manager or as one of 3 judges on a TV show, in which respect the subject is already adequately covered at MasterChef_Pakistan#Judges_and_Presenters. AllyD (talk) 18:51, 9 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. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable musician. I'm unable to locate any significant and reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. — Zawl 07:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this article from a local publication is a start but I could not find anything else in terms of coverage for this person. I'm not seeing enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO.  gongshow  talk  03:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom; fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:12, 17 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.  Sandstein  11:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:ARTIST. Being the recipient of a non-notable award does not guarantee notability of any kind, lacks coverage in independent RS. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've been looking for sources on and off for a couple of days now and found nothing. There is no material for an article. Mduvekot (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There could be sources in Albanian, especially local news. Seems to have won several awards which are of importance in Albania. Though they lack international recognition, as does Albanian art in general. A Guy into Books (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete there's not enough here. I've found this interview and this gallery opening, but it isn't enough for WP:NARTIST. I don't think Albanian-language art press coverage can meet WP:GNG here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems to have not enough notability as the current article is and lack of sources reinforces. Agree with above comments that award refs seem non-notable. Shaded0 (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete It looks more like a resume than an article on a noteworthy artist. I am sure he has his accomplishments, but is he really notable? Maybe later he/she could be, but not right now.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:36, 19 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, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

fails to meet WP:GNG. no RS. Saqib (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete obvious advertisement. Jytdog (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:38, 16 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. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Minor actress -- her most significant role has been as a taxi driver in Pulp Fiction -- and the article's ONLY references are two film reviews and an actor listing. Calton | Talk 17:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nomination is misleading - Jones had the starring role (alongside William Baldwin) in Curdled (1996), a film for which many reviews exist. Pulp Fiction may have been her most high-profile film (in a role written for her by Tarantino), but her starring roles in Curdled, Family Secrets, and House at the End of the Drive, and significant roles in others, means she has a lot more going for her than just playing a taxi driver in one film. --Michig (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hogwash. I'd say your rebuttal is what actually counts as misleading. According to WP:NACTOR, an actor is "presumed notable" -- though not proven -- if he or she:

1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

For point 1, you've got a small role in Pulp Fiction -- and no reliable source for the "written for her by Tarantino" factoid -- and a film for which the best you can say that reviews for it exist, so fail. For points 2 and 3, not even close. --Calton | Talk 03:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A bit of civility wouldn't hurt. Neither would going to Google and doing some searching rather than just looking at what's in the article. --Michig (talk) 06:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep One look at her IMDb settles this pretty clearly. [[5]] Sethie (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You'll have to do better than "Because I said so." --Calton | Talk 03:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete a bunch of minor roles does not add to notability. IMDb is not a reliable source, so it proves nothing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• She has clearly had major roles, so also having minor roles has no bearing on notability. --Michig (talk) 09:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A significant number of roles and those include major films. More than adequate indicia of notability. Meets NACTOR. Montanabw^(talk) 19:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - subject's roles meet WP:NACTOR. I've added two references.  gongshow  talk  23:21, 16 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. Ignoring the obvious socking, unanimous consensus to delete as self-promotional. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable promotional piece for an author and digital marketing executive. Nothing really outstanding here: none of the awards he has won qualify as prestigious under WP:ANYBIO, and the sourcing here is either promotional industry insider stuff or primary source articles he wrote himself. Borderline G11 piece, but I prefer to bring those here to get more eyes. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Note: - Page has been moved to David Coffey.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've moved the relevant AfD and changed all the links. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per mom, and referencing much that Wikipedia is not- WP:NOTCV, WP:PROMO, WP:NOTLINKEDIN, &co. Possibly at some point in the future, if lots more books and / or achievements which- fundamentally- other reliable sources reference themselves. — fortunavelut luna 18:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete fails WP:BIO; obviously written for promotion and would need to be completely written, if that were possible. Jytdog (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative to Delete His publications are notable including The Hill and American Bar Association. Keep page as edited in current version as self promotion was edited out by another editor yesterday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.121.37.170 (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative to Delete Agree. His publications are notable including The Hill and American Bar Association. I was the editor who edited out the self promotion the other day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Instaslam84 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC) — Instaslam84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Alternative to Delete There are other articles about Dave Coffey in the digital marketing industry from reliable sources including Adweek: http://www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/phd-added-communication-strategy-reason-success-79905/ and MediaPost: https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/27846/cable-to-give-agencies-the-data-they-demand.html as well as Adage where he is a "news maker" with CNN http://adage.com/article/people-players/photo-review/62789/ He has also been featured on Michigan Technology News https://mitechnews.com/archive/iced-out-glima-state-of-the-net-set-for-march/ these should be included in future edits of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.209.36 (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC) — 24.236.209.36 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete as per nom. The main claim of notability appears to be as an author of articles in various magazines, and I don't see this meeting either WP:BIO or WP:NAUTHOR. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:47, 18 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 Draftify. I'm also going to create a redirect to Osamu Tezuka. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Neologisms, unsourced, and very likely full of original research. A search for of this term doesn't even bring up any mentions that predates this article, thus WP:CIRCULAR. —Farix (t | c) 14:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to note that I see there are references on the Japanese wiki article (I didn't check the Korean page) -- and those are readable by non-Japanese readers using Gtranslate... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete original research, already covered by the main manga article, including the Komawari sequencing of how to read the panels. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See below. 17:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• Keep many references in books and academia which credit Tezuka as the originator of a form of manga (comics) which are more story-oriented and visual as opposed to newspaper strips and text-heavy American comics:
  • Dreamland Japan: "the manga that I discuss in this book are almost all what are called 'story manga' in Japan. These are narrative manga... [The format] is what makes Japanese comics so different from those in other countries"
  • Manga in America: "story manga tell a continous story over a large number of pages"
  • Manga: An Anthology of Global and Cultural Perspectives: "Manga narratives are derived from Tezuka Osamu's innovative 'story manga'"
  • Manga : 60 Years of Japanese Comics: "Osamu Tezuka ... originator of story manga"
  • "The first Japanese Manga magazine in the United States": "Another factor that contributed to the popularity of manga in Japan was the development of 'story manga,' a serial of comic strip consisting of a dozen frames, in contrast to a one-frame manga."
  • "Opening the Closed World of Shōjo Manga": "Tezuka pioneered the 'story manga' format by applying a so-called 'cinematic' method"
    Opencooper (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to add those sources into the article? The way it is presented, it is still an essay and seems redundant to the main manga article, like it doesn't need to be split off from the main. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think based on the fact that it has references, but no one to integrate them into the body of the article, that it should be pushed into Draft, and this be redirected to Osamu Tezuka as one of his coined terms. The term is not present in either the Manga article or the History of Manga article, but since it's all about Tezuka's perspective, that would be the most helpful. However, even the Tezuka article does not say "story manga" either, so that would need to be tweaked. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Incubate As described by AngusWOOF, it seems to be mostly related to Osamu Tezuka and outside of history concerning him it's almost never used. The Japanese Wiki article for the term also pretty much just talks about Tezuka. Could also be merged to his article. Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Incubate I don't see a reason for deletion if someone is willing to improve it up to standards. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:04, 14 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. utcursch | talk 14:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No significant coverage in any available sources, only passing mentions, usually when he has been quoted. Fails WP:BASIC, ANYBIO, GNG, BLP. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - subject doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines under WP:JOURNALIST. PohranicniStraze (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete im agree with PohranicniStraze Leodikap (talk) 15:10, 11 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. A number of sources have been proposed, but there's deep disagreement over the quality. We don't seem to have any meeting of the minds on what constitutes trivial vs. significant coverage, with rational arguments being made on both sides about specific sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Only seems to be mentioned in passing in all the articles Carl Fredrik ^talk 22:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The alt-right has caused a great deal of controversy and Paul Ramsey has played a role therein. Here are quotes from several sources:

"popular alt-right internet personality" (The New York Times -- link)

"prolific alt-right commentator and vlogger" (The Huffington Post -- link)

"a YouTube sensation" (Salon -- link)

"importante figure de l'alt-right" (French Version of VICE -- link)

There is no need for a biography in the mentioned source. Also I do think that reasons given in the last discussion -- where a clear majority proposed "keep" -- are valid. Sincerely, 93.224.97.95 (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those comments are entirely unrelated to the rationale. Either provide sources, rewriting the article or don't waste time arguing this is important for some political fringe.

You still only cite the sources that mention him in passing. Carl Fredrik ^talk 14:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you absolutely think that an article with numerous mentions is indispensable to substantiate relevance, look here:

Judy L. Thomas: Flush from victory, alt-right hits a rough patch, The Kansas City Star, or here:

Horváth Gábor: Magyaroknál lobbizik az önjelölt amerikai nagykövet , Népszava

but your rationale is flawed. It actually does matter what a source is saying. And don't waste time with an erroneous inference trying to diminish relevance using the phrase "political fringe".

93.224.110.175 (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This proposed deletion reminds me of your flawed rationale and failed proposal to merge the articles "white supremacy" and "Identitarian movement".

I didn't know I had proposed that. Nice sleuthing. Anyhow, this still fails quite hard on WP:GNG per:

Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

Carl Fredrik ^talk 19:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does not fail on WP:GNG. The sources contain more than a "trivial mention".

93.224.110.175 (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Flawed rationale again. Just for your enlightenment: it was not "sleuthing", I just remembered that nonsensical proposal which I had responded to (I wrote "reminds me", actually not that hard to understand), went to the corresponding article, clicked 500 views and let the browser look for "CFCF", a matter of seconds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.224.110.175 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - a definite delete. Fails GNG and BIO. Only trivial coverage in all sources. The subject has not received significant attention in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. References and other sources consist of one line or two line mentions in articles of varying topics pertaining to the alt-right. Here is how the references do not support this subject for a stand alone article:

1. TPM - one line mention
2. Salon.com - one line mention
3. Mother Jones - one sentence mention (maybe two lines)
4. The Federalist - his name is mentioned once
5. New York Times - one sentence coverage in the whole article.
6. Media Matters - two lines and this source is probably not an independent reliable source - it is a blog supporting a personal point of view.

The last two references are the same. I am willing to critique them here if necessary. The sources posted at this AfD are of the same nature. Only passing mentions. There is not enough material in these sources to maintain an acceptable biography per Wikipedia standards. The lack of sourcing also indicates this subject fails WP:BLP. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Steve, I looked up the NYTimes citation you dismiss. While it is not a profile, and offers no in-depth coverage of Ramsay, it does say: "Paul Ray Ramsey, a Trump supporter and popular alt-right internet personality..." This is a RS describing Ramsay as popular, and, as such, offers some support for his notability. Together with the details on his life and work provided by the SPLC which enable us to source an article, descriptors like "popular" in RS publications validate notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment: the reason the Kansas City Star article [[6] fails as an acceptable source for this topic is because it is a bunch of quotes by the subject. This is trivial coverage. This is not coverage that significantly discusses this person. This is in contrast to Richard Spenser for most or all the sources posted here. He and his behavior are independently discussed ad infinitum. The Hungarian source [7] is also trivial coverage on its own because no other reliable sources cover this desire to be an ambassador - therefore verification fails. Also, this is coverage of only what Ramsey says, without any kind of critical eye lent to the writing. And a biography article on Wikipedia cannot depend on only one sketchy source (I also doubt it qualifies as WP:RS - no independent editing staff, fact checkers, and so on). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's always a matter of interpretation what is considered trivial. "Definite delete"? For a long period of time mentioned again and again in the media, more than 40 thousand subscribers and 13 million visits (for a far-right political channel!), and now this media turmoil concerning the alt-right, wherein he played his role, cf. e.g. American Renaissance-conference. Looking at the other discussion about whether to keep or delete one can see that the media coverage does not have to be interpreted as "trivial". It does of course depend on the picked comparison, e.g. comparing to David Duke would dwarf this coverage even more. 93.224.110.238 (talk) 08:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not really a matter of interpretation. The appropriate guideline was quoted above per GNG:

Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

Also:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.

Passing mentions are specifically noted in the guidelines, and the guidelines are summations of our core content policies. Furthermore, anyone quoted in a news article or in a TV interview is a primary source sharing information about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to. The same goes for YouTube videos, self-posted videos somewhere else, and so on, no matter how many subscribers and views (which can be achieved with bots, by the way). This material is non-independent and would contravene the neutral point of view policy, if it were deemed acceptable as verification for notability. It is clear on Wikipedia what is trivial and what is not, and what is independent coverage and what is not. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To see the extent to which rules are a matter of interpretation, one has to only look at how they are applied in practice. 93.224.105.81 (talk) 08:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep seems like a pretty clear GNG pass, for better or worse. Artw (talk) 05:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• keep if the SPLC thinks he needs a bio, we ought to have one too. Mangoe (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as has been twice shown in this discussion, this bio does not pass GNG, BIO {BASIC, ANYBIO), and so on. Passing mentions, and printing quotes, are the definition of trivial coverage. Also, asserting a false equivalence by saying the SPLC has a biography so we ought to have one, does not really work. Coverage is needed by multiple other sources according to BASIC, ANYBIO, and GNG, and because right now, the SPLC source is a one-off. We have notability criteria to fulfill and that is not based on one organization or one reliable source. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Ray Ramsey participants and closer: Govindaharihari (talk · contribs), Animalparty (talk · contribs), AusLondonder (talk · contribs), E.M.Gregory (talk · contribs), David Tornheim (talk · contribs), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), and Kurykh (talk · contribs).

  Cunard (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep largely for the reason I stated in the last AfD, coverage, WP:SIGCOV including this 2013 profile 2013 magazine article, brought by User:Animalparty to the recent AfD establisheds notability. Double-checking myself, however, I ran a quick search on his blog handle: RamZPaul, here: [8] and can see that non-trivial, RS that didn't come up under his full name; the first 2 hits are to The Atlantic, one of these mentions reads "Popular American far-right YouTube and Twitter personality RamZPaul, who has lived in the Hungarian capital off and on since 2013, tweeted in February to nearly 35,000 followers: “Budapest is like Paris of the 1920s. #Hungary.” Steve Quinn, Look, I may not like him, and up until, oh, say, ~two weeks ago I didn't take our U.S. right-wing fascist-wannabe's seriously. But since Charlottesville, I have doubled down on my opinion that we need to keep an eye on 'em. And RS coverage of Paul more than passes notability. This article needs expansion/improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete entirely sourced to POV pushing articles intent of over-emphasizing the influence of people with ephemeral influence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as E.M. Gregory has shown there is only one source that significantly (and non-trivially) covers this topic, and that is the SPLC article. However, the other source targets a Google search results page. This essentially shows a list of articles. Each have one or two line passing mentions of RamZPaul the blogger (Paul Ray Ramsey's alter ego). This set of articles merely quotes his response to a number of events, and those events are the actual topics of each article. They do not cover RamZPaul the blogger in any non-trivial way. Once again fails GNG, BASIC, ANYBIO, ISNOT, and so on. However, the effort is appreciated. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You misstate what I wrote. I mentioned a couple of sources, there are also others that provide WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't misstate what you wrote. One line mentions are trivial coverage. Also, quotes are primary sources, they are not independent coverage. There is nothing that I see that passes WP:SIGCOV. More than trivial coverage is needed in each source according to all the guidelines referenced in this AfD. One complete article on one website is not enough. The purpose of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources is for verification. But it seems people forget this. And I have no more to say here. I am done with this AfD. Farewell, and good day to all. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Besides the SPLC source there are at least these three (just found the third one) sources were the subject is not only mentioned "in passing" ([9] The Kansas City Star, [10] Népszava, [11] The Raw Story). Of course one could always find some reason or angle to sort them out -- well, considering the Hungarian source the "verification fails"? Another one consists of quotations -- so what? It's not a mentioning in passing and adds relevance. Furthermore -- being mentioned again and again in passing -- one can easily find numerous instances -- does show his role after all.

Summa summarum -- as long as the subject's role in the alt-right is relevant enough, the aim should be to gather information for the Wikipedia-article and not kick out every source one by one for not being verifiable and explicitly biographical. 93.224.108.150 (talk) 08:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- the SPLC profile is quite in depth: link. I believe that this plus other sources brought up at this AfD sufficiently establish notability of the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. There's no content here other than his political positions. There's no claim that he meets any specific notability guidelines. I don't feel that people can meet GNG solely by being obnoxious to reporters, as in [12]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:29, 17 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; !votes by new participants are discounted due to their unfamiliarity with Wikipedia standards for inclusion. bd2412 T 13:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non notable, many sources don't resolve or are over-represented as articles when they are simply Instagram or blog posts CelenaSkaggs (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I went through each and every one of those links and all I can is that the sourcing is atrocious. The subject is not even mentioned by name in any of the legitimate, non-blog publications. WP:GNG, WP:BLOGS, WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK, at least. RetiredDuke (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mentioned by name by GQ http://gq.co.za/2016/05/6-stylish-men-follow-instagram/

• Retain There are a lot of articles in non-blog publications — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.12.53.166 (talk) 09:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment 78.12.53.166's Comment is unfounded. Same IP removed the AfD from the page, and removed link to Italy-related discussion page. Furthermore, IP resolves to same location as the subject of the article. Likely conflict of interest; reinstated links - do not remove the AfD until the debate is complete! CelenaSkaggs (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retain The subject is mentioned by name by GQ, I have a copy of GQ march issue with a full page of him. I see Vincenzo Langella also in many TV 151.41.120.224 (talk) 06:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please provide references. CelenaSkaggs (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mentioned by name by GQ http://gq.co.za/2016/05/6-stylish-men-follow-instagram/

• Retain I think he is vivp very important virtual person. By now there are people that have virtual relevance. 91.252.25.24 (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please provide references. CelenaSkaggs (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mentioned by name by GQ http://gq.co.za/2016/05/6-stylish-men-follow-instagram/