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

The result was speedy keep. Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT#1, the nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Demetrius Joyette[edit]

Demetrius Joyette (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 clear indication of any significant roles; WP:NACTOR suggests we need two. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Rubin's incorrect assertion. We have actual articles about numerous shows in which this individual plays a notable role. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I said "significant", not "notable". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  There are a lot of roles mentioned; if you name two which are actually significant, I'll withdraw the nomination. At most one of the three roles mentioned in the lead is significant, and I'm not sure about Digrassi. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  At least two of the main roles mentioned have Wikipedia articles which note this individual as a "main character". Do your own research before wasting our time. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw. She has significant roles in insignificant series; and the guideline is unclear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although opinion is divided as concerns delete or merge, one "merge" opinion would also support deletion and the two others don't really address the reasons for deletion. Sandstein 12:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K7033/7034 Harbin-Heihe Through Train[edit]

K7033/7034 Harbin-Heihe Through Train (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. Articles should instead exist for the lines that the train runs on (one exists; the other doesn't and should be translated from the zhwiki article). Jc86035 (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge this and K7035/7036 Harbin-Heihe Through Train and 4031/4032 Harbin-Heihe Through Train to Harbin-Heihe Through Train. A walled-garden created by a user who was blocked for personal attacks immediately after creating these pages. [1] does list all three routes. But Wikipedia never has articles per-numbered-route, not on trains or buses or airplanes. Deleting the whole lot (per WP:TNT) as under-referenced traincruft is also an option. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  (after the relist) ​ There are apparently about 350 articles on bus routes, a third of them for bus routes in London. Jc86035 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I misspoke. I meant different numbered trains on the same route. All of the many buses per day on London Buses route 13 are the same number, there's only one number for the route as a whole. These are three trains on the same route with three different numbers. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and delete the two similar articles as well. Agree that there lacks evidence of notability. Also not a through train, by the definition in that article. Just a set of 3 pairs of trains that provide service between two cities. If we were to look at all the different terminus-to-terminus services that are provided by China Railways, this would probably be in the many hundreds, few that would be notable. I see that in Chinese Wikipedia they do have some articles for a collection of train numbers that serve the same route, for example one article for all the trains serving Beijing-Shanghai high speed in addition to the one for the line itself. So perhaps a Harbin–Heihe train service if merge. Heights^{(Want to talk?)} 23:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I'm reluctant to support deletion in topic areas that still need development, including coverage of countries where we are limited by the availability of English language sources - I think China is one of those topics, so some leeway should be given, but there is no need for three articles about roughly the same thing. SeraphWiki (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per SeraphWiki's comments. 2Q (talk) 08:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per Heights, but instead add passing mentions added on either end of the services, rather than a new article about the service itself. Nightfury 14:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and without prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tod Strike[edit]

Tod Strike (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 indepedently notable from The Ten Tenors. Some coverage as an individual in theatre websites, but not enough significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Boneymau (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Seems to have enough independent, reliable coverage to meet GNG. Merge wouldn't be appropriate given the number of members in the Ten Tenors. He has a Cairns Post article on him from 2001 and a Courier Mail/Herald Sun article on him from 2004, among others. Also has numerous interviews and profiles separate from his Tenors role on various independent, albeit niche, sources online. Kb.au (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to The Ten Tenors. Not enough to justify an independent article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Lacks significant coverage for a WP:BLP. The article states, "best known as being one of the original members of "The Ten Tenors" (minor one time wonder), and there are 46 other "former" members. The 24 word (prose) article will just remain a poorly sourced carrer stub. PLEASE do not merge. This often results in a blue link. The reasoning is that someone will want to "blue link all 57 names (ten current but that changes) and the band members that will be BLP links just linking back to the The Ten Tenors article that is an on-going issue on other articles. There is not enough notability per reliable sources for this subject. Otr500 (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Madat Khan[edit]

Raja Madat Khan (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)

Nothing significant. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete totally unsourced. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative searches:

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

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

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

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

• Delete In a case like this leaving out the title Raja could maybe prove useful, so I tried the above alternative searches. I found no book sources on Madat Khan|Bratla or Madat Khan|Koi, which surprises me. There is a whole lot on Madat Khan alone, but I can't figure out which, if any, are relevant to this person, and which are false positives. I can't even figure out when this person lived. Could there be sources in Urdu? Could an editor with more familiarity with the subject area do a better job? As it is now, it fails WP:V. Delete per WP:DEL7. Sam Sailor 09:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sher Khan (soldier)[edit]

Sher Khan (soldier) (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)

Nothing significant. Fails WP:NSOLDIER. Störm (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Did Khan really receive the Victoria Cross? Did he receive the Nishan-e-Haider? If he got the VC or if he got the Nishan-e-Haider and it is the highest Pakistani award, then he passes WP:SOLDIER.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 03:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Comment: I couldn't find any reliable sources for him receiving the Victoria Cross although it appears he did receive the Indian Distinguished Service Medal, per [2][3]. Is it possible he has been confused with Sher Shah (VC)? AustralianRupert (talk) 05:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible on the confusion. When I was Googling, I clicked on a Sher Shah link. The ref cited in the article, btw, appears to be on a forum. The picture?--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nominated for deletion on Commons. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have updated my comment now as the claims about receiving the highest level awards do not appear to be verified, and I haven't been able to find significant coverage to indicate notability. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. He certainly didn't win the VC. Possible confusion with Sher Shah, who did. -- Necrothesp (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- does not meet WP:SOLDIER & significant RS coverage not found. Could it be a hoax / confused article, since the VC claim does not check out? In any case, better off deleted for lack of sources and per WP:V concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First Focus[edit]

First Focus (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)

An advocacy organization. Promotional article, little in the article to indicate notability per WP:GNG. The generic name makes it difficult to find sources. The leader, Bruce Lesley, is occasionally cited in political news articles, but that's his job given the nature of his organization. There seems to be little in reliable sources about the organization as such, as opposed to the political issues they address. Sandstein 22:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE per nom - article seems promotional, lacks sources Thalium (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- unsourced WP:ADVOCACY for a nn org. Basically, org spam; no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hongyuan Zha[edit]

Hongyuan Zha (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 in apparent violation of the terms of use by known undeclared paid editor -- see [4] He is notable, so someone without a coi might want to eventually write an article. DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• DGG I can't get the link you made to work. What is Wikipedia policy for dealing with notable article subjects added by paid editors? FloridaArmy (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FloridaArmy, I fixed the link. Paid editing is begrudgingly accepted, undisclosed paid editing is not. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I read the linked discussion. Is there a community consensus that creations of paid editors can be deleted (at least as long as significant editing by others hasn't taken place)? Surely this happens fairly often? I support Delete as a paid advertisement, even though the copy isn't overwhelmingly advertorial its creation is. But I would like to know what the established guidelines and precedents are when these subjects come up. I know I've voted to keep articles created by suspected paid editors if the articles were good and the subject was notable. If undisclosed paid editing isn't accepted then certainly it should be deleted. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not personally aware of a consensus specifically endorsing deletion of undisclosed paid articles that are notable, perhaps DGG, Primefac, or Kudpung would know. However, as the edits have been made in violation of wikipedia's terms of use, those edits can certainly be removed. If another unpaid editor endorses the edits, then it becomes a bit of a grey area, but that has not happened in this case. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has become acceptable but not obligatory practice to delete articles by undeclared paid editors regardless of notability. Some admins do it at Speedy, on the assumption that the paid editor is almost certainly the sock of an earlier paid banned editor, though we cannot be certain which. And we can delete at AfD for any good reason that has consensus, including such things as NOT HERE, which means not here to contribute according to the rules, but in contempt of them. I only have started doing it after others have been doing it unchallenged for many months. If the TOU mean anything, it means that contributions made in deliberate violation of them are not permitted. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the counter argument is that we should do what makes the encyclopedia better and that an article created by a paod editor me be on a notable subject, well written, and well sourced. If an editor in good standing is willing to review it carefully and make sure it's neutrally written, includes and notable controversies, and is free from advertorial content that would be a reason for keep unless the point is to punish paid editors. But I don't think we are suppoaed to be pointy? In this case I support deletion. I think I already said that.. If so I stand by it. Thanks for the discussion and explanations. Helpful. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FloridaArmy, as I said before, if another editor decides to review and 'endorse' the content, then the deletion argument becomes a grey area (though the content was still created in violation of the ToU, so really it should be deleted and rewritten anyway). At that point WP:B1G1F comes into effect though, which we should not be encouraging. Some amount of WP:POINTYness is necessary if we intend to have any control over undisclosed paid editing. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clear violation of ToU, and must be made an example of. Delete but do not salt in case someone in the future, unconnected with the subject, has the idea of creating a new one. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Made in violation of the ToU. No significant other authors. Don't salt but do not issue a WP:REFUND. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Magnolia677 (talk) 03:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

East Downers Grove, Illinois[edit]

East Downers Grove, Illinois (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)

Neither source cited supports that "East Downers Grove" exists or ever existed. The creator of the article may have mistaken this place for Downers Grove, Illinois. GNIS lists Downers Grove, with a variant name of "East Grove". Google brings back nothing for "East Downers Grove". Magnolia677 (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse pagemove from Gostyn, Illinois and revert to September 16 revision IP/low edit account trying to play pretend and divide up a suburban city into an 'east' community when nobody calls it that (IP tries to point out that 'nobody calls it Gostyn' now but history just doesn't evaporate), but the historical info about Gostyn is at least legit as a historical settlement eventually absorbed into Downers Grove. Nate • (chatter) 01:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf: Ah yes. I will remove my Afd. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Crompton[edit]

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

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

I found no reliable sources to suggest this person is notable. Mattg82 (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• He's quoted here and I did find an occasional mention but not much. Doesn't appear to me to satisfy notability standards. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin. So we do not create articles based on personal websites of a person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:GNG. = paul2520 (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural references in The Picture of Dorian Gray[edit]

List of cultural references in The Picture of Dorian Gray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article that has been around since at least 2006 when split from the main article was prodded with the rationale: "Completely unsourced trivia". It is partially internally sourced. I'm not taking a strong stand on whether it should stay but be cleaned up or deleted entirely, but I think it needs discussion. LadyofShalott 21:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 21:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as prodder, everything here is unsourced and useless trivia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unnotable trivia. Somebody had way, way, way too much time on their hands and mostly decided to categorize every(?) character in the book as real or made up. This is about as useful for analysis as listing which pages start with "A" or "The". Clarityfiend (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- excessive listcruft and original research. Reyk _YO! 14:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fun fact, the same editor who added all this information in 2005, had at one point created separate articles for each chapter of the book. It looks like once they realized their attempts to turn Wikipedia into CliffsNotes wasn't going to be welcome, they stopped editing the encyclopedia. — Warren. ‘ talk , 16:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yah, I reckon 2005 was kind of the tail end of Wikipedia's early years, when its purpose and scope was still not quite set in stone. Maybe back then a huge CliffsNotes analogue was still possible. But I'm glad we didn't go that way. Reyk _YO! 17:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Listcruft. I'm sure that a similar list could be compiled for many novels; what is so special about Dorian Gray?TheLongTone (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. However, cleanup to ensure compliance with WP:BLP would be a worthwhile endeavour. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Swingland[edit]

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

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

I am Ian Swingland. I want the page concerning me deleted. I don't want a debate or discussion but the page struck off. It has become the target of constant editing by one person and as a donor to Wikipedia I believe I should have my wishes respected. One of your administrators keeps editing my page with conjecture and newspaper's hyperbole put up by others. He describes himself as an inclusionist but I and my legal team take a different view. The outcome of a trial I suffered last winter is shrouded by an injunction and what has happened subsequently is tittle-tattle and gossip in the press. Mark Twain said "If you don't read newspapers you're uninformed. If you do, you're misinformed."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianswingland (talk • contribs)

• Keep. The subject is described as a "world-renowned conservation professor"[5] and "renowned conservationist" (by the Times no less[6]) who was accused of being involved in a tax-dodging scheme. That can't be just conveniently swept under the rug. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm very sympathetic to article subjects not wanting to be included, but in this case your objection isn't to being included but to facts about a widely reported on $60 million tax dodge. If it is only an allegation there are grounds for removal but if it's been established in courts and / or resulted in actions taken by notable agencies it seems wrong to engage in censorship. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• You're all missing the point. The judge put an injunction over publishing and dissemination of matters concerning the trial precipitated by highly inaccurate and prejudicial press reports September 2017. The Court may take action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianswingland (talk • contribs) 21:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you are missing the point. While anyone in the UK is certainly bound by UK jurisdiction, outside the UK editors are not. Secondly except under extreme circumstances the judge is hardly likely to be able to restrict publishing of already published material (from 2016, still available on the telegraph website). If he had, the telegraph would have been required to remove it. Wikipedia works on already published information. And as a friendly notification, stay away from any wording implying legal action on your part against Wikipedia editors. Otherwise you will find your ability to edit here swiftly restricted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I remain unconvinced that his actions rise to the level that requires us to have an article on him, and if they are not at that level there is no harm in deleting the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article was started over seven years ago. Swingland seems notable so it's a keep. The wording about the tax dodge could be softened, though. YoPienso (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obviously, as someone who obviously far exceeds our notability requirements on many levels. I would add that, per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Ian Swingland we should not imply that we know why his OBE was withdrawn without a reliable source saying why. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously passes GNG, given he has commited no crime cut back on the tax avoidance stuff Darkness Shines (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Being a financial donor to Wikipedia does not give anyone any editing priviledges. Legal threats are banned in Wikipedia. Swingland should have known that autobiographies are likely to cause critical remarks in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.216.95.90 (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We don't delete pages at the subject's request, even if they're donors. If someone's adding libelous remarks, they can be dealt with, but the solution is not to delete the page. Smartyllama (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• And how do you suggest we deal with editors who add content that defies WP:BLPCRIME? By adding such content you are making it seem that the only way to deal with the problems here is to delete the article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Venable[edit]

Richard Venable (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)

Apparently was mayor of Sullivan County, Tennessee. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES says county level legislators are not automatically notable. Yes there are some local sources name dropping him for a quote about local issues but I'm having trouble sourcing in-depth coverage about him. He was a member of the Tennessee House of Representatives, don't know whether that implies any automatic notability, WP:BIO suggests that it doesn't. Mattg82 (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep NPASR  Nominator hasn't prepared the nomination enough to know if members of the Tennessee House of Representatives are presumed notable.    Unscintillating (talk) 06:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- The nominator actually made the arguement to keep. He's notable as a member of the Tennessee House of Representatives. as per WP:NPOL #1 "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature."--Rusf10 (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:BIO is actually quite broad and vague about very general principles of biographical notability — which is why we have a substantial body of more detailed subject-specific inclusion standards (SNGs) for specific occupations in addition to BIO itself. The applicable one for politicians is WP:NPOL, which states in #1 that we do accept state legislators as notable. This does need a rewrite and some real sourcing, but he does pass our inclusion standards. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: Please note the "External links" I removed was an advertisement redirect and of course not acceptable as a reference even if viable. Important: The notability guidelines This page in a nutshell; "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. There is no inherited notability (automatic or not) and all articles, especially BLP's, have to have the above mentioned sources, no matter how much we like an article, per Wikipedia:NRVE. I provided a primary source (as apposed to an unsourced article) but be advised that the nominator was not unjustified even if knowing there was primary sourcing for his term in the State Legislature. Like it or not having unsourced or poorly sourced BLP's violates at least one of the Five Pillars that includes a host of policies and guidelines and even relevant community-backed essays. If we really want the article it needs proper sourcing or we will have to hope a closer will accept a "keep" head count only" regardless of a lack of sourcing and policy. Otr500 (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Extra comments: If the subject here is the same "Richard S. Venable", according to other primary sources, he apparently reclaimed the office of Mayor.

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

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

The result was keep. The article was improved by adding sources. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Child Trafficking Now[edit]

Stop Child Trafficking Now (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)

May be a scam https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FseTO9PsHdc Doesnt appear to exist as an organisation any more, though the walks mentioned do seem to have happened. Rathfelder (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Whether its a scam or not IDC< but I think it passes the GNG per multiple news articles.L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 17:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- does not meet WP:NORG; coverage is passing mentions or self-promotion. The coverage includes: KQED-Dec 14, 2016: "Clark Stuart and his Global Trident companies were prominently affiliated with a now-shuttered national nonprofit, Stop Child Trafficking Now, which came under scrutiny for massive fundraising and large payments to Stuart's private companies, with few results. But Clark Stuart continued to snag business ..." Not sufficient for an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per extensive coverage indeed. BabbaQ (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails GNG and WP:NORG. Refbombing to show notability. A quick look found three of the links are dead and one is to a general site that has nothing to do with the subject. The name existed but I cannot find anything current or anything past the 2011 controversey. Not enough notability to even finish (in detail) an article because there is a lack of significant coverage which is the scam part. Otr500 (talk) 08:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably keep. This outfit is now defunct, it didn't last long, and principals may have been keeping some or more of the funds they raised for themselves. Nevertheless, SCTN got quite a lot of coverage in 2009-10, articles nationwide covering fundraising marches in many cities, and coverage of efforts at raising money and recruit staff on a program of tracking down child traffickers to turn them in for prosecution - no evidence that they accomplished much more than fundraising and getting reporters to cover them. But WP:SIGCOV coverage does exist. Plus WP:HEYMANN I added a bit of what's out there to the page. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Much improved. Happy to withdraw the suggestion that it should be deleted. Rathfelder (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Maguire (digital artist)[edit]

Michael Maguire (digital artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I can't see where the artist meets WP:GNG. He is mentioned in a book about electronic literature, but the rest of the references are from blogs, the artist himself, or an interview with the artist. So he wrote some electronic literature works and some "number of scripts which were picked up for production" What does that mean? And now he's working in the video game industry? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: no independent reliable sources found. ww2censor (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He did do some interesting things, but the coverage of those things does not rise to the point where notability is established. Of the sources given, two are interviews and two are essentially encyclopedia entries. It's not enough.198.58.161.137 (talk) 09:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Gough[edit]

Rob Gough (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)

Struggling to find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional tone. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Sources are promotional with company second party advertisement, passing or trivial mentions, or is just insignificant. There is no individual notability, failing WP:NACTOR with only bit-parts in three movies and one of those is in post-production. Eckim and DOPE fail WP:CORPDEPTH and the company relationship is not inherited. Otr500 (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Saltman[edit]

Daniel Saltman (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)

Reason Montaukwarrior (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC) This is a blatant biography with severe notability issues. Should be removed.[reply]

• • Hi, do you have any connection to Daniel Saltman positive or negative as your account is a single purpose one, devoted to deleting this article? Atlantic306 (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • As it is an autobiography I won't be voting for it to remain Atlantic306 (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As per norm. does not meet WP:DIRECTOR. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable businessman. Wikipedia is not supposed to be Linkedin. Which is one key reason we need to require use of real names as usernames, and make it so all articles have to have someone else besides the creator approve them to start to exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shafie Ayar[edit]

Shafie Ayar (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)

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY; already deleted at WP:Articles for deletion/Shafie Ayar (2nd nomination). Boleyn (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing in the article indicates notability, and I can find no sources that help. The book written by the subject is obviously not an independent source and it is also self-published. Any possible notability would seem to be in the United States so if the subject was notable I would expect sources to be available in English. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Webb Mountain Park[edit]

Webb Mountain Park (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)

Municipal park that has no notability and fails WP:GNG. Only taking to AFD since it was previously WP:PRODed. Rusf10 (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Amendment to Nomination- The article also fails WP:NOTTRAVEL--Rusf10 (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that there is no explanation of why NOTTRAVEL is relevant.  I looked at WP:NOTTRAVEL and see nothing relevant.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything relevant about 90% of your comments here, but I digress. Wikipedia is not a travel guide and being that most of the sources being found for this article are travel guides, the topic clearly falls under that designation. "Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc."--Rusf10 (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The post's ad hominem doesn't successfully hide the post's use of inapplicable policy to discount WP:RS. 

As for the cited policy, is "Webb Mountain Park" the notable location?  If so, the post has stipulated that the topic of the AfD is notable.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can cut the WP:WIKILAWYERING crap. The location's coverage is limited to guide books. While they may be considered a reliable source, it still falls under what Wikipedia is not.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guidebooks are okay, and the coverage is guidebooks except for the coverage that is not guidebooks, such as regional planning documents such as 61 page report cited below, which is surely a reliable source for some information. Or is any coverage about a park deemed to be a guidebook? --Doncram (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The report is a great reliable source, but unfortunately it does nothing to establish notability since it is not an WP:INDEPENDENT source. As a government report it is not independent. WP:GNG require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"--Rusf10 (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the three pages about the park in "Connecticut Woodlands, Volumes 53-56 published by the Connecticut Forest and Park Association., 1988", cited below, are dismissed why? Because while that doesn't sound like a travel-style guidebook, it sounds like a comprehensive reliable source about woodlands, as a reference-type work it can be deemed a guide to the topic area, so it should be dismissed? I'm sorry, but comments here seem to be trying to kick sand on anything put forward. I'd say "disingenuous" but I'd have to look that up. --Doncram (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - and improve. This article needs some TLC. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

any policy based argument for keeping?--Rusf10 (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It is quite well known in the local area among rock climbers as a great training area and it's integration of natural education into the local school curriculum is also unique in the area. These are notable areas that this article needs to be expanded on, not deleted because they are not yet developed, from the bit of research I did on the park. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment [was "Keep"] It's a park. Parks are more or less natural features and public facilities. This is a short nice article with photo and sourcing, fixed up after a long-ago prod. The article is quite old and helpful to have in wikipedia, no reason to delete. --Doncram (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What policy makes parks inherently notable? They are not natural features, but man-made designations. The arguments that it is old (see WP:OLDARTICLE and helpful(see WP:USEFUL) are really poor arguments to make.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete for reasons noted by Rusf10 Burley22 (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep [was "Merge", probably to Monroe, Connecticut."] It is a municipal park, created in 1972, of that municipality, and it would be perfectly appropriate to be covered there. I don't see the point of dropping the article, and I would prefer to see guidebooks and other sources prove well enough to keep it outright. But there's no reason to delete it fully; we should search for alternatives to deletion; merge/redirect to the municipality article at a minimum is better. Also if more coverage turns up later, the article can be restored with edit history intact, properly crediting the original editors. --Doncram (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to "Keep" based on User:FloridaArmy's arguments below, including that they have verified it has substantial coverage in offline sources, reportedly including three pages in "Connecticut Woodlands, Volumes 53-56 published by the Connecticut Forest and Park Association., 1988." This is as expected, that there would exist coverage. An article does not have to include any sources at all, we just need to have reasonable expectation that substantial sources do exist. Here there is now assertion, which I accept on good faith, that specific such sources do exist. For other parks, even where the sources are not specifically known, there should be strong presumption that such sources do exist.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yantacaw Brook Park, New Jersey, similar AFD about another park, also nominated by deletion-nominator here. I fear a deluge. --Doncram (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep this is an important and significant 640 acre park that includes a notable rock formation used by climbers as well as trails that connect up to a 13.5 mile network. The park and adjacent discovery center are important sites of biological study and the parkhas been documented in reliable soirces as an important home to native flora. The park has also been the site of well documented biological control efforts. The site is also well covered for its trails and trail improvements done by community members. Plenty of coverage. Just for its role as an important rock climbing area it is noted here, for example, with subatantial coverage of the clinbing opportunities it offers as well as its significant geological features which are notable even apart from the site being notable and signicant as a rock climbing site. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Furthermore its discussed here as part of an important historic architectural preservation and land conservation effort. "He wants to create a community centered around equestrian interests with trails, stables and paddocks for horses. There would also be access for the non-horse owning set to rent horses, take riding lessons and ride through trails that would connect with Webb Mountain Park and the Webb Mountain Discovery Center, which back up to the property and contain more than 640 acres." In what alternate universe is a 640 135 acre park that is part of 640 acres of protected lands, that functions as an important biological preserve, geologic feature, hiking amenity, discovery center area, natural rock climbing area, study area, and cultural feature now warrant inclusion in the "sum of all knowledge"? If it's not notable how did I find all of this out about it from a plethora of reliable sources in just a few minutes? FloridaArmy (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem with that source is the historical building is NOT in the park, it is next to the park. The article has nothing more than a mere mention of connecting a trail to the park. Notability is WP:NOTINHERETED--Rusf10 (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I argue its notability was inherited? It is covered substantially in reliable independent sources. That's just one of many examples where it's noted and discussed. Happens to be part of an ongoing and important preservation, conservation, and recreational development plan which I note is in addition to all the other coverage of its signicance in a variety of roles. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Webb+mountain+park"+connecticut&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjA6tjwqtjYAhUE5oMKHUcnD4YQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=%22Webb%20mountain%20park%22%20connecticut&f=false photographed here and in lots of guide books such as "Webb+mountain+park"+connecticut&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjA6tjwqtjYAhUE5oMKHUcnD4YQ6AEINTAC#v=onepage&q=%22Webb%20mountain%20park%22%20connecticut&f=false here. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Connecticut Woodlands, Volumes 53-56 published by the Connecticut Forest and Park Association., 1988 devotes three pages to the park. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• How does one cite pdfs such as [www.ctert.org/pdfs/Monroe_WebbMtnExt_330.pdf this one]? FloridaArmy (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ctert.org/pdfs/Monroe_WebbMtnExt_330.pdf is a working link to that PDF file, a 2005 report which has substantial information about the park. It strikes me that a municipal park as big as 640 acres (2.6 km²) (park plus associated protected area, anyhow) in Connecticut is unusual, too, especially being in Fairfield County, closest to NYC. NYC's Central Park is apparently 778 acres (3.15 km²), by the way.--Doncram (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The books FloridaArmy just listed actually help make the argument that the article falls under WP:NOTTRAVEL since they are all travel guides.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that another editor just replied about NOTTRAVEL along the same lines, but I was just going to say: NOTTRAVEL says that wikipedia shouldn't be a travel guide, it simply does not say that travel guides can't be used as sources. Travel guides certainly can be reliable sources for many things, and are frequently used. And not all the sources cited are travel guides. I probably won't reply further. --Doncram (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  Deprodding is not a WP:DEL-REASON.  WP:BEFORE D1 search finds sources on Google web, Google news, and Google books.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep   Specifically with regard to claims that this article violates WP:NOTTRAVEL, I think that standard is being misunderstood. The fact that Webb Mountain Park happens to be mentioned in guidebooks is irrelevant to assessing the article's compliance with WP:NOTTRAVEL. WP:NOTTRAVEL really refers to not injecting excessive (and non-encyclopedic) guidebook-type information into an article. So WP:NOTTRAVEL suggests, for example, that the article for Monroe, Connecticut shouldn't list all of the restaurants in the town, or the phone numbers and addresses of various entertainment venues, or ramble on at length about surrounding tourist attractions that aren’t actually in the town. WP:NOTTRAVEL therefore really doesn't have any bearing on this AfD. All of that being said, the article is quite poorly written and definitely needs an overhaul, though there seems to be sufficient published materials in which it is referenced as to exceed the threshold below which it would be deleted for lack of notability. —Jgcoleman (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the sources found by FloridaArmy which demonstrate WP:GNG compliance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. by Jimfbleak, per G11 (non-admin closure) Nightfury 10:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fleetwash[edit]

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

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

I feel this article fails the general notability guidelines and our standard for depth of coverage regarding companies. Article was created an hour ago so WP:BITE concerns are alleviated. For GNG candidates I see mentions by CNBC and Law360. Everything else is press releases, BusinessWire (which I believe to be not a Reliable source, or passing mentions. (someone being murdered next to their FW truck or existing in a count of a city's car washes isn't notable). For those who care, the article is unsourced and half essay/OR about the impact of the EPA's CWAct. Detected via EF180. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 19:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 19:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 19:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 19:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as inambiguous advertising; also possibly A7 for lack of sources. WP:TNT is also applicable as unsourced original research and advocacy. I see that the page was declined at AfC a month ago as User:James_DiCarlo/sandbox, but was moved into mainspace anyway. So WP:Bite does not apply. I requested a speedy deletion; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clement Sethupathy[edit]

Clement Sethupathy (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)

Nothing actually in WP:RS for this priest. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree -- not quite enough to be WP-notable in my view. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no where near meeting notability requirements. It is beginning to feel like someone created articles on every Catholic priest in Pakistan. I doubt it is that bad, but there are lots and lots of articles on non-notable Catholic priests.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shimica Castro Wong[edit]

Shimica Castro Wong (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)

She had one song that won in the Hong Kong Film Awards , which could redirect to the film itself at (WP:MUSICBIO #10), but the rest of the information is either from her websites or iTunes. I can't make sense of the Hong Kong music charts and it's not clear which of those are notable. If she started her career with a label at 2013, why are singles prior to that listed? Non-notable other awards too. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to keep you waiting,She has 2 official websites,http://www.hongermusic.com/shimica.php , http://b2talentasia.com/artist/shimica-wong/, And those charts are so notable in Hk. She was an independent singer who worked with pinoy musicians before signing a deal with Honger music. feel free to check it out She released her first English single on soundclick in 2007 http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=746777 And released 2 singles with pinoy musician "eAzY" on youtube in 2010 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZLACdzAQVo , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ic5OvcHuayMXBabiCaca (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

feel free to check this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantopop#Major_awards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantopop#Cantopop_radio_stations, it can prove that the charts and awards are notableXBabiCaca (talk) 12:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

977 chart official website http://www.metroradio.com.hk/997/Music/Chart/Local.aspx 903 chart official website https://www.my903.com/903openbox/903songtable1 rthk chart official website http://www.rthk.hk/radio/radio2/programme/chinesepopchart tvb chart official website http://jsg.tvb.com/XBabiCaca (talk) 12:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately none of the Hong Kong charts are described in WP:CHART so there's no indication what are really notable. Most appear to be radio and television stations' local charts. Soundclick isn't a notable chart, that's comparable to citing iTunes. The Metro Radio Hit Music Awards is a maybe as it's listed in Cantopop but the Song Writers Quest is not listed there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding actors and filmmakers, film wikiprojects for assessment of Hong Kong music and film awards notability whether those are good enough for her notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Hong Kong Film Awards winner - The Hong Kong Film Awards is arguably the most prestigious film award in Asia, on par with the American Academy Awards. Top 5 RTHK charting artist. If an editor "can't make sense of the Hong Kong music charts", then that's every reason to perform due diligence and not even think of AfDing. This is looking like a case of WP:BIAS. --Oakshade (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, I'm trying to make sense of the Hong Kong music charts. I'm looking at the WP:SINGLEVENDOR now and while this would be a good case for her notability, the charts section should be scrubbed for local networks that are definitive national channels (ones based in U.S./Canada shouldn't count). Television stations should not count towards charting; this would be like having a U.S. single count towards appearing on Total Request Live. Soundclick is still not a legit chart for here as it is like iTunes. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Her wins is notable and her Chinese wiki is more complete. This page needs major development.Filmman3000 (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added ((Expand Chinese)) tag to the article. Hopefully the news articles there aren't just youtube announcements. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For her appearance on the Hong Kong Film Awards, and establishment of what charts on Hong Kong Radio are actually notable, as well as potentially good references on ZH wikipedia, I'll go ahead and withdraw this early. But the charts still need scrubbing to meet MOS:ACCESS and discography standards. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was revert to disambiguation page. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jasur Hasanov[edit]

Jasur Hasanov (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)

A resume with three citations, two of which are self-published and the third of which doesn't mention him. A search turned up nothing better. Fails WP:NBIO. I propose revert to the version of 7 May 2015, which was a ((hndis)) page overwritten by this article Narky Blert (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep as no argument has been provided for deletion, which would include deletion of article history. If this needs to be reverted then simply do it, and, if that is then contested, discuss the issue on the article's talk page. This is all a matter of simple editing rather than deletion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unsourced self-promotional WP:COI. Restore the page to the disambiguation page from before all the fluff was added. [7] older ≠ wiser 11:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Once again, if this is deleted the history will also be deleted, so there will be nothing to restore. Edits get reverted all the time without the need to delete the pages first or discuss them at AfD. Why can't this simply be reverted without going through such a long-winded bureaucratic process first? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy revert to the necessary dab page as before the incorrect over-writing edit of 15:02, 12 January 2018. I was about to do so but then noticed the AfD template so had to hold back on it for now. PamD 13:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore dab [8] Boleyn (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete overly promotional article that is no where close to being shown to cover a notable subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• But why delete, which would get rid of the original disambiguation in the history, rather than revert to it? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Just speedily recreated the dab page for now, and moved it to the main namespace... Only problem with the idea of restoring the dab page from this page's history, would be that the entrepreneur page has more history in that namespace. Any suggestions? For now, though, the main namespace of "Jasur Hasanov" should definitely be the dab page. No sources have been given to prove that the entrepreneur is more of a notable primary topic than the footballers. Paintspot Infez (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a good idea. The history of the pages and the AfD will now be quite a mess. Please don't move a page while an AfD is happening - it would have been better to let this discussion take its course. I'm not going to try to unpick your changes, for fear of making matters even worse at this stage. PamD 17:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Shoot, so sorry. I screwed up. Should I try to fix it back? Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Fixed it back; sorry about that. Bad call on my part, and I fully apologize. It won't happen again. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy revert to dab page. Upon further inspection, this would be the best course of action. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Przydacz[edit]

Simon Przydacz (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, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources Hack (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG, referees are not inherently notable through any SNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not pass WP:GNG or WP:FOOTY Atlantic306 (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Derry[edit]

Tom Derry (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)

New football club, so not G4 eligible in my mind. Still fails NFOOTY. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Definitely G4 eligible IMO. New club is not in a fully-professional league so makes no difference. Perhaps also salt it this time (this will be the fourth time it's been deleted). Number 57 01:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt Fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Provost[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of an actress and filmmaker, with no strong claim of notability under either WP:NACTOR or WP:CREATIVE and no strong reliable source coverage to support an article. The strongest notability claim here is that she won a student film award at a minor film festival, and the "referencing" here is two-thirds to IMDb and one-third to an article in her local community newspaper which isn't even about her acting or filmmaking but merely about her volunteering for a local youth group. As always, neither actresses nor film directors get an automatic inclusion freebie just because their existence can technically be verified by IMDb -- she has to either (a) win or get nominated for a major award on the order of the Emmys, Oscars or Canadian Screen Awards, or (b) receive enough reliable source coverage about her work to clear WP:GNG, but neither of those things have happened. Bearcat (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Has not had a notable acting role and fails GNG.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Her threadbare IMDb entry challenged my will to live. Fails WP:NACTOR. Narky Blert (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 André (singer). (non-admin closure) — Zawl 23:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards received by André[edit]

List of awards received by André (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)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Harut111 (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harut111 (talk) 10:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• merge back to André (singer) which isn't all that long. Mangoe (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Delete There is no reason this should be a separate page and not just a section under the main page of the singer SamanthaFinmore (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC) - striking per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge back - it's short enough to fit easily, even if he wins a few more prizes in years to come. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back to André, no reason not to with two short articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agha Bashir Ahmed[edit]

Agha Bashir Ahmed (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)

Nothing exists on Pakistan Cricket Board's website. He was the head of Multan Division so its not much notable. Nothing in sources. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 11:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yoursports[edit]

Yoursports (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)

Nothing significant about this website. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Undisguised corporate spam and the only section is "Concept". Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or fund-raising. Fails WP:SPIP and GNG. References fail the criteria for establishing notability and fail WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lazzaro (producer)[edit]

Lazzaro (producer) (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)

Despite an extensive search, I couldn't find enough significant coverage about him; most of what I could find were passing mentions, discographies, or profiles. It appears he has collaborated with notable musicians, and he has produced at least one notable song, but I couldn't find much that discusses him specifically. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Narutolovehinata5: Here are some interviews about him and his works. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Harut111 (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In a comment above, the article creator has suggested that coverage about him might exist in Armenian; as such, participants in this discussion are encouraged to check if Armenian, Lebanese, or Swedish coverage exists. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delte a non-notable producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Johnpacklambert: Please can you elaborate your statement? Also, he has got an award for being the best producer of the year. How can you just say "a non-notable producer"? Harut111 (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Classic drive-by vote.BabbaQ (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Note to closer: The above delte [sic] !vote was typed in and saved only 1 minute and 8 seconds after the user's previous !vote in another deletion debate. ––Sam Sailor 09:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - passes WP:GNG. Per award, per achievements in field of music. Charting. BabbaQ (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If he's notable and passes GNG in Armenia, there is no reason he's not notable in English WP.--Oakshade (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Won an award at the 2015 Armenian Pulse Music Awards, so passes WP:GNG.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Armenian sources pass WP:BASIC and won a notable award Atlantic306 (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sources presented above don't fit the WP:GNG criteria "significant coverage of reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic". Most of them are interviews and non-significant. Others seem like press releases and blogs. Searching the name on Google shows nothing much, even the name in Armenian shows nothing relevant. There is nothing to verify that he won a significant/notable award, which breaches a core policy of Wikipedia. — Zawl 00:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duquesne Family Office[edit]

Duquesne Family Office (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)

Not enough coverage in reliable independent sources to satisfy CORPDEPTH or GNG. James (^talk/_contribs) 13:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- just a directory listing based on routine corporate announcements. No encyclopedically relevant prose. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Private funds are a dime a dozen, and this one misses the mark. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Subject is covered in enough reliable sources to establish notability. Meatsgains (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which sources? Is there significant coverage? James (^talk/_contribs) 20:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of the page's current references are reliable and this one details the firm. In regard to significant coverage, 1200+ ghits. Most coverage is on recent investments but the news articles still cover Duquesne. Meatsgains (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage refers to the substance of the coverage, not the amount of mentions. James (^talk/_contribs) 12:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indications of notability, most mentions in relation to the notability of the firms being invested in, notability is not inherited. References are not intellectually independent - mainly PRIMARY sources, normal business announcements and/or relying on company announcements, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rangika Halwatura[edit]

Rangika Halwatura (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 and the content in the article mainly depended upon Sri Lankan sources. Abishe (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 17:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 17:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 17:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 17:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no opinion as yet on the substantive issue of notability, but must point out "the content in the article mainly depended upon Sri Lankan sources" is not in any way a reason for or contributing factor towards non-notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The award from The World Academy of Sciences has generated enough coverage to pass the general notability guideline, as referenced in the article. These sources are from major national publications in a country with a population of over 20 million. The fact that they are from Sri Lanka rather than a smaller country such as the Netherlands does not mean that they can't be used to establish notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nominator's argument for deletion is that the sources are Sri Lankan! That is not a valid reason for deletion, but is clear evidence of WP:BIAS. Jacona (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep To be awarded with "The World Academy of Science Young Scientist Award-2017" does pass WP:GNG and reliable independent source from Sri Lanka is an accepted source. Here found source from Australia SBS Station [15]. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hyram Bagatsing[edit]

Hyram Bagatsing (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:NBASKETBALL, contested PROD. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable basketball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please consider these sources Philipine Star articles referencing Hyram BagatsingJacona (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is one of many articles related to the PBA nominated for mass deletion by the same nominator, almost all of which have significant coverage from a number of reliable sources. There is an indication of WP:BIAS and a failure to properly perform WP:BEFORE. I have contacted User:Sportsfan 1234 on his talk page, he has not responded to my comments but has continued to make deletion nominations. Articles known to be affected include: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Enciso, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyram Bagatsing,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Von Pessumal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Trollano, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teddy Alfarero,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ric-Ric Marata,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manny Victorino. There may be others, particularly some others may have been deleted, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Caperal,Edward Chongson,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjo Caram,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Gonzales,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aries Dimaunahan,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dino Daa,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Daa Jacona (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per my comments above, I didn't realize I hadn't actually !votedJacona (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has enough reliable sources coverage such as Phillipine Star to pass WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 15:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly notable per above sources. Nominator obviously didn't do WP:BEFORE, nor did Johnpacklambert, who votes delete on almost every article, often multiple times within the same minute. Smartyllama (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Von Pessumal[edit]

Von Pessumal (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:NBASKETBALL, contested PROD. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Easily meets gng with the coverage that can be found on a search at Philipine Star [Philipine Star search for Von PessumalJacona (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is one of many articles related to the PBA nominated for mass deletion by the same nominator, almost all of which have significant coverage from a number of reliable sources. There is an indication of WP:BIAS and a failure to properly perform WP:BEFORE. I have contacted User:Sportsfan 1234 on his talk page, he has not responded to my comments but has continued to make deletion nominations. Articles known to be affected include: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Enciso, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyram Bagatsing,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Von Pessumal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Trollano, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teddy Alfarero,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ric-Ric Marata,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manny Victorino. There may be others, particularly some others may have been deleted, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Caperal,Edward Chongson,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjo Caram,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Gonzales,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aries Dimaunahan,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dino Daa,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Daa Jacona (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of these articles fail WP:NBASKETBALL, which sets out the guidelines for notability for basketball players. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of these pass WP:GNG which is a higher standard.Jacona (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But did you properly perform WP:BEFORE to check whether they passed WP:GNG? The PBA is pretty well covered in the national media in the Philippines. I checked one of these Afd's and a short search turned up a variety of sources. Seems to be the same with others, so I'm a bit worried that these Afd's are done with no WP:BEFORE whatsoever. Dammit_steve (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Clearly notable per the above sources. It is obvious nominator did no WP:BEFORE. This and the others easily meet WP:GNG. May be time to escalate since nominator has a pattern of doing this for at least the past several months. Smartyllama (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per my comments above, easily meets WP:GNG, so WP:NBASKETBALL is not necessary, WP:BEFORE was not performed.Jacona (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sources pass WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Enciso[edit]

Simon Enciso (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:NBASKETBALL, contested PROD. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Jacona (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The PBA is pretty well covered, a short Google search turned up a variety of articles about him on slamonlineph.com spin.ph rappler.com inquirer.net abs-cbn.com tv5.com.ph -- Dammit_steve (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's easy to stop at a quick google search.... Here's a list of articles in a Philipine paper that should help Enciso pass gng: Philipine Star articles on Simon Enciso. Plenty of coverage by reliable sources, passes gng.Jacona (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:GNG per the above sources. Smartyllama (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is one of many articles related to the PBA nominated for mass deletion by the same nominator, almost all of which have significant coverage from a number of reliable sources. There is an indication of WP:BIAS and a failure to properly perform WP:BEFORE. I have contacted User:Sportsfan 1234 on his talk page, he has not responded to my comments but has continued to make deletion nominations. Articles known to be affected include: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Enciso, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyram Bagatsing,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Von Pessumal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Trollano, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teddy Alfarero,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ric-Ric Marata,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manny Victorino. There may be others, particularly some others may have been deleted, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Caperal,Edward Chongson,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjo Caram,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Gonzales,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aries Dimaunahan,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dino Daa,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Daa Jacona (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has enough reliable sources coverage such as Phillipene Star to pass WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don Trollano[edit]

Don Trollano (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)